GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
We are aware that this regulation, in conjunction with others, such as the regulation on traceability and labelling, constitute steps towards lifting the moratorium on GMOs. The pressure exerted by the US, which has now lodged a complaint against the European Union at the WTO, and by the huge biotechnology multinationals seeking to remove the moratorium and to achieve free trade in GMOs, is becoming increasingly clear. The proposals contained in this report, however, as at first reading, make significant improvements to the text. An agreement in this field could be important to speeding up the process of ratifying the Cartagena Protocol on biological safety and biodiversity. Furthermore, the proposals suggest that GMO imports cannot take place without the prior written consent of the importing country and that the signing of agreements and conventions cannot lead to a level of protection lower than that provided by the current regulation and by the protocol. These proposals also require the exporter to comply with national regulatory frameworks and to guarantee the public right to information. These proposals consequently warrant our support. As the report suggests, the precautionary principle must be observed, rejecting the subordination of this principle to commercial considerations, given the potential impact of GMOs.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Pakistan, the world’s seventh largest country with 140 million inhabitants, has, since 12 October 1999, been controlled by a military regime under General Musharraf. The eyes of the world have of course been on Pakistan since the General promised to hold elections within three years of the military coup to restore democracy and civil rule in the country. A tiny, tiny part of this promise has been kept: elections have been held. Simply implementing elections does not, however, guarantee democracy. The circumstances surrounding the election must also be considered – firstly, before the election in the form of legislative changes to increase the power of the military regime and its entitlement to dissolve parliament and dismiss the government, rule changes which restricted the eligibility of four percent of the population and restrictions on conducting election campaigns. Secondly, during the election in the form of pressure on individual politicians, different rules for different candidates from different parties, irregularities during the election process and restrictions on people’s opportunities to vote. Thirdly, after the election in the form of a clear unwillingness to hand over power to those elected. This all means, unfortunately, that we now have to admit that this was a missed opportunity to restore democracy in Pakistan. The consequences for the people of Pakistan cannot be stressed enough. Unemployment, poverty and illiteracy are increasing. The only path that can lead to better standards of living for the people of Pakistan involves democracy, changing from military rule to civil rule and opportunities for a democratically elected government to implement reforms in the areas of education and employment. I see it as our duty and responsibility here in the European Parliament clearly and truthfully to report on the circumstances surrounding the election, which we were able to observe through an EU delegation which was there. We must also stress the importance of the work on restoring democracy in Pakistan continuing. I therefore support Mr Cushnahan’s statement here today. The government of Pakistan must be urged to work in a democratic direction, and the EU must continue to keep a close and critical eye on developments in Pakistan.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the historical issue concerning the French Presidency, for I do feel that it is a historical issue, is first and foremost to open up the way for the construction of a Europe for all Europeans. We invited the new democracies in Eastern Europe to join us now that they have put the ordeal of Communism behind them and we were right to do so. Nevertheless, we were fully aware that we would not fit greater Europe into the institutions of little Europe. Since then we have dawdled and dragged our feet over the reform of these institutions. Ten years after the fall of the Berlin wall and one year after the Helsinki decisions on enlargement, I see the new Intergovernmental Conference under the French Presidency as the kick-start that all Europeans expect of Europe. I say this because it is not only the size of Europe that is changing; it is also its very nature. If we consider Europe as a whole, we must define Europe and define its borders, its values and the European project. Any definition of borders raises the problem of Turkey, which, to my mind, should become an associate country rather than a fully integrated one. We must also think of Europe in a different light, not as a huge nation-state, with a super-government, a super-president, a super-administration or even a super-tax. Instead, we should see Europe as the construction of an area of genuine federalism, which protects the diversity of people and of nations, which has a clear constitution that defines and limits the powers of Europe and which applies the principle of subsidiarity and ensures that this will be strictly complied with. Today, the French Presidency has an obligation to achieve results. As the French President said, unless the IGC is successful, there is no point in thinking about the following stages. A review of decision-making mechanisms in order to prevent paralysis and a review of the functioning of the Council and the Commission are all on the agenda and I think that the projects for tomorrow and beyond must not conceal what is required today. The success of the IGC now will actually be the best basis on which to build the huge project for the greater Europe of tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Theorin, for adopting this topic, the participation of women in peaceful conflict resolution, as the subject of a European Parliament own-initiative report. Women are especially affected by wars and conflict situations because of their responsibility for their family, their children and the elderly, but also because they often assume sole responsibility in the absence of their husbands and fathers and accordingly often have to ensure, single-handed, that their family survives. The situation is also particularly difficult for women, however, if they still have to fight for recognition and for equal rights in practice. Decisions on implementing relief programmes are the responsibility of crisis teams, and the specialist knowledge and expertise of women is often not recognised or not given due respect by such teams. Yet it seems all too obvious that the people to involve in such difficult situations are those who bear responsibility on the ground, on the home front as it were, and can contribute to resolving conflicts from their own experience. As, unfortunately, this is not regarded as obvious, this report makes a very specific demand for women to be integrated into these bodies and for them to be given a participatory role. The report denounces the fact that conflict situations are still associated with violent assaults and also appalling sexual assaults. Preventative measures are needed, including the provision of special protection for women in refugee camps by segregating said camps. We must help women who are victims of violence. That much we agree on. This chapter of violence against women in conflicts goes beyond the actual subject of this report and really should have been developed further in view of its importance and highly explosive nature. The Theorin report goes into a lot of detail and repetition, which we in the Group of the and the consider do not belong in an official document. We also need to make sure that requests are made in a realistic framework. For example, I hope that the compromise reached, which Mrs Theorin referred to in connection with Paragraph 12, will also gain the support of this House. In areas where decisions are within the competence of Member States, we in the European Parliament can highlight changes and desirable improvements. But we have no legal power to achieve them. It is the responsibility of the Member States to take decisions regarding women in refugee camps. The Group has gone to great pains to table appropriate amendments, and I ask honourable Members also to support the compromise amendment tabled by the rapporteur on Paragraph 12. If we want our voice to be heard on the international stage, we must take matters forward through diplomatic channels, recognising their sensitivity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as you have said, we will be voting on the compromise motions agreed in an informal conciliation procedure with the Commission. We referred the report back on 16 May and in the meantime it has been improved. By adopting this procedure vis-à-vis the Commission, Parliament has once again expressed our resolve also to achieve full codecision in the Committee on Agriculture and in relation to agriculture. We have achieved it by adopting this procedure for the case in point. I want to thank the Commission for its cooperation in this regard and I hope the compromises we have reached will also gain the kind of support from the Council and the Commission that means they can only be rejected unanimously. So the Commission and Parliament have jointly managed to establish a very strong position and I hope that will also serve as an example to the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the British Labour group voted in favour of the amendments on data retention, Amendments 46 and 47, precisely because we consider a very delicate balance has been struck in the detection of criminality and the protection of civil liberties, in particular the references to the fact that any measures must be proportionate and appropriate within a democratic society and, indeed, the references to Articles 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty of the European Union and, accordingly, the rulings on the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention.

Political group: PSE
Your words, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, and those of the Vice-President of the Commission lead me to believe that Ireland feels able to conclude an agreement on the Constitution put forward by the Convention. We will be delighted if Ireland is able to achieve this, not only because Ireland is a Celtic country like my own, Galicia, but also because this would show, once again, that it is one of the Union’s great pro-European countries. As a Member for one of Europe’s stateless nations, and one that is not even recognised as such, I have reservations about this draft Constitution arising from the shortcomings in cohesion policy and from the weakness of the positions we have adopted on our role in preserving peace in the world. I have confidence, however, in the direction the European Union has taken historically, which is unequivocally in favour of diversity with solidarity, in contrast with the uniform approach of the Jacobin States that today prevails in the State of which I am a citizen. It would be most opportune, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, if this Parliament issued a formal statement under the Irish Presidency, approving the Constitution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted for the report but I should like, in particular, to explain the reason for my vote on Amendment No 74. This amendment sought to prevent Members from presenting more than two explanations of vote per sitting. I wish to thank the Group of the European Peoples’ Party , the Group of the and the individual Members from all groups who voted against this amendment. I would really have been annoyed and, I think it would have been neither democratic nor worthy of a parliament to silence the voices of its representatives just because – and I would have been particularly u t not to be able to do this any more – every time they give an explanation of vote they raise the problems faced by pensioners, which is what I do and, above all, because they express themselves in a way that they consider appropriate, which might include humour, warmth and the possibility of smiling every once in a while, albeit in a serious atmosphere and whilst saying serious things. In any event, we have succeeded, which has made me very happy, and I am very pleased that I will be able to continue to do this over the next two years. However, I will think carefully about whether or not I should continue with the explanations of vote

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Prodi, you spoke a moment ago about sustainable development which is to take place worldwide. You specified a number of initiatives which apply to Europe. That is fine. There is also a debate surrounding the question of whether European businesses should perhaps not only report on the social and environmental standards which they apply within Europe, but also on the social and environmental standards which they apply when they invest abroad. What if they invest in Asia, Africa or Latin America? Might it not be a good idea to enter into a dialogue with large businesses on the question of whether they should maintain European environmental standards, even if they invest in Taiwan, Namibia or Brazil? A large company such as Volkswagen is already developing that strategy. In that way, Europe could do something for the environment outside Europe, and that is a practical initiative. We might need to make this strategy compulsory after a number of years, but we need to enter into a dialogue with large-scale industry in the first instance.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report we are discussing today contains Parliament’s proposals for reforming the European Union. This is necessary because of the forthcoming enlargement. The reform is also necessary, however, due to the fact that now, for the time being, eleven countries have a common monetary policy. This necessitates the Member States’ at least pursuing their economic policies on the basis of common principles. The economic system prescribed in the Treaty of Rome has remained the basis of the Community’s economic policy. It is a system of open markets. In a number of Member States, one particular concept has been adopted. It bears the name “social market economy”. I would recommend that this concept of the social market economy be incorporated into the Treaty. That is also the view of the majority of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy. A significant part of the Member States’ economic policy revolves around tax policy. Here, through Europe’s internal market, competition between the economic systems has arisen which, in the area of VAT, for example, has led to tax rates’ converging. However, the internal market in this area is not complete because the anticipated changeover to the country of origin principle has not yet taken place. This is one example of why the requirement of unanimity in the Council has led to paralysis in decision making and therefore to a reduction in economic performance. As a result, our economic growth is lower and unemployment higher. That is why it is necessary, at least when it comes to the procedures for collecting taxes effective across national borders (VAT in particular), to permit qualified majority voting in the Council. A further problem area is Parliament’s still inadequate participation in the legislative procedures concerning competition. Competition is the key to our industry’s competitiveness and therefore a prerequisite for Europe’s ability to embrace the future. We therefore demand, where legislative procedures in this area too are concerned, that the European Parliament be involved in the decision-making process. What we request is that, in a number of areas in which, in full adherence to the principle of subsidiarity, the Treaties now already accord Europe a key role, the role of Parliament should be strengthened and the principle of majority voting established in the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I addressed the House in January on the issue of the frequency of flight cancellations in Amsterdam. I said then that one in two flights were being cancelled. Well, the same thing happened again yesterday: once again, the flight from Amsterdam was cancelled. I would ask the President to come to a better arrangement with Air France.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, for his work programme. I concur with the remarks made that there should be more focus, but also that it should be better tailored to the five-year plan. It seems as if we are talking about two different documents. The first chapter of the work programme is entitled: “Europe, its neighbours and the world” and rightly so. I have permission to quote one of the first sentences from this chapter: 'the Union must be active on the regional and world stage.' But in order to be able to play this role, it is vital to develop a practical form of cooperation between the Council’s High Representative, Mr Solana, the Commission and the European Parliament in order to strengthen democratic control and democratic accountability. In our opinion, it is also essential that the Commission’s role be reinforced in the field of foreign policy. We want to project a much stronger, united front as far as this European foreign policy is concerned. But the instruments involved are also an important factor. They help in the analysis of non-military crises and help us to act on them quickly. If we look at Mozambique, for example, how long have we had to wait before real action could be taken? This is about very concrete issues, such as transport capacity. To this end, we need swifter coordination within the European Union. Take the enormous cattle losses Mongolia has suffered. We know that there are funds available in TACIS and ECHO within the European Union. But why are we not helping out? This is because there are too many bureaucratic hurdles. The EU’s overseas dealings will need to be better tuned to our need for a stronger, future European foreign policy. In short, operational implementation is central. Relations with Russia are of vital importance. We find ourselves in a situation in which we cannot afford to fall behind the Council of Europe, which has levelled criticism at Russia concerning its Chechnya policy. It is extremely depressing to note that freedom of press is still not guaranteed in Russia. We had invited the journalist, Mr Babitsky, to visit us next Thursday, but this was vetoed by the Russian authorities. I hope that the European Commission too, will protest in the strongest terms to the Russian authorities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am addressing the representative of the Presidency, Mr Antonione. Mr Antonione, I do not doubt the sincerity of your intentions but some of the expressions you used – I might almost way which slipped out – concerned me greatly. You said that some Member States, or government representatives, are standing firm on their requests for change for reasons of negotiating tactics. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: the Intergovernmental Conference was not supposed to be a negotiating forum, governments should not have been allowed to adopt positions already presented in the Convention – as Mr Hänsch and Mr Brok pointed out – positions already rejected by the Convention because more convincing solutions with wider backing had been found. I am not saying that the Intergovernmental Conference should just have blindly approved the Convention’s draft, as, moreover, the Heads of State and Government were wise to do in the case of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights; I am saying that the Intergovernmental Conference should purely have checked for shortcomings and contradictions in the Convention’s draft, as it should be doing now, and discussed how to overcome them. You also said that the Italian Presidency’s position is clear: it advocates a text which departs from the Convention’s draft as little as possible. However, that concept of ‘as little as possible’ is entirely open to interpretation and discretion. We need to be clear: woe betide the IGC if it meddles with the Convention’s most important innovations: the powers of the European Parliament, particularly in budgetary matters; the double majority system; the Legislative Council; the appointment of the Foreign Minister. Do not put the European Parliament in a position where it has to reject the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference and call upon the national parliaments not to ratify the Treaty. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to speak on the Brok Report, which, as the previous speaker said, contains many valid points, but also a number of very complex issues, two of which I should like to single out. The first point relates to paragraph 20 in Mr Brok's resolution, which states that if the EU wishes to be credible, a further effort in the defence budget of certain Member States will be needed. This represents a serious misconception and analytical error. Total expenditure of all EU countries in the area of defence and security amounts to 50% of that of the United States. The options created as a result only amount to 10%. This means that it is of vital importance for cooperation and efficiency to be improved. In other words, the EU can do a lot more with the same money. This is why my group is completely convinced that an increase in defence expenditure is unnecessary, completely unfeasible in financial terms and wholly undesirable from a political perspective. The second point concerns the remark by Mr Yiannitsis, chairman of the Council for security, not, of course, to be confused with the Security Council. Unfortunately, you have had to repeat here what many of your predecessors have said before you, namely that no compromise has as yet been reached on the EU's use of NATO funds. This can only mean one of three things: either Greece is still being obstructive, and Turkey is outdoing it in obstructiveness, or they are both still being obstructive. I beg you, Mr Yiannitsis, spare us all a disappointment in this respect. The need for joint EU action has never been so great and, as you said yourself, support among the people has never been so great. I urge you to excel yourself for once. Show us that Greece, and this also goes for Turkey, is not a prisoner of the past. You, Greece, can do the EU a great service, but you can also do it a disservice. The choice is yours.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, given the disastrous vote just now on the chocolate issue, I must say that I am not particularly proud of what we have approved. It should be pointed out that the European Parliament has taken responsibility for altering the very composition of chocolate by allowing the introduction of vegetable oils and fats other than cocoa butter. The European Parliament is clearly not in tune with public opinion in several respects. Firstly, its position does not correspond to the demands of consumers who want clear labelling. We have not granted them this labelling on chocolate. Parliament is also not in tune with public opinion which is becoming increasingly reticent about GMOs. We have rightly refused to allow GMOs in chocolate, but only by three votes. In addition, we have applied the precautionary principle by refusing the prior studies on the impact which this directive will have on the producing countries and so on. Nothing has changed. The question to be asked is who really benefits from the manipulation and ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE