GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I very much support the thinking behind Mrs Ludford's question that these people are both victims and illegal migrants. She asked about a coordinated policy of assisted returns. The Council has competence here. Will the President-in-Office and the Council be taking forward to the Thessaloniki Summit the idea of managed migration – mentioned in the Tampere Summit – i.e. a more coordinated and thought-through policy throughout the Member States, as was revealed in Mrs Ludford's question?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I, too, should like to thank the rapporteur for the work she has done on this report. It is true, in my opinion, that she has managed to get the entire committee behind her – as well as the entire Parliament, I assume – for her proposals. Naturally, I should also like to congratulate Mr Pérez on the victory in Galicia. I endorse everything that has been said, that this is a sound report and that there are a number of amendments that could considerably improve the proposal. However, I am also a little pessimistic. I see little evidence of any inclination to examine our proposals in the Council or in the Commission. If anything, they are more inclined to dig their heels in and say: well, the employment policy as we have designed it works, and we refuse to make any changes. We want to involve Parliament to some extent but preferably as little as possible. That is actually rather the impression I get, especially in the Council but also partly in the Commission. In a different report on social protection, we managed – in fact, under your presidency – to break out of this. I hope that this will be the case here too, but I am far more pessimistic this time round. We are dealing with a Council which seeks even less direct contact with Parliament. We are faced with even more difficulties, which adds to my sense of pessimism. I am delighted that the rapporteur drafted this report. In my opinion, it pinpoints very accurately what we are agreed on in this Parliament, but I am pessimistic about the outcome. Maybe my pessimism could be transformed into optimism. However, if all signals are red – and that is the case here – then that should be voiced in this House. That is the main reason why I have taken the floor today. I hope that I come across as being rather gloomy. We will hear from the Commissioner and particularly the Council whether they will at long last leave behind their old ways and perhaps are really willing to enter into a dialogue with this Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, High Representative, Commissioner, with regard to the war in Chechnya, we have all noted the particularly restrained and almost accommodating reaction of the international community in general and of the European Union in particular. Now, what has happened and what is still happening in Chechnya is similar to genocide. How else can we describe the complete annihilation of a regional capital of 400 000 inhabitants, the unremitting and inordinate bombing of towns, villages and districts where, in amongst the whole of the civilian population, there are perhaps a handful of Chechen fighters? How should we describe the sinister filtration camps, which are comparable to concentration camps, in which the population is suffering the most dreadful humiliation and from which able-bodied men between 15 and 65 years old rarely get out alive? How can we describe the rapes, the looting, the deliberate fires, the deportations, which are called “cleansing”, that recall the worst episodes of the Middle Ages in Europe? And what can we say about the leaden shroud that is crashing down on Russian and international journalists and with the banishment of the humanitarian organisations and any international commission of inquiry at the sites of the massacres? If that is realpolitik, if we really do not have any means, Mr Solana, as High Representative of the CFSP, and Commissioner, I put this question to you both, let us at least use the means that we do have, namely, the aid programmes to Russia. The war in Chechnya proves, if proof were necessary, that the duty or the right to intervene stops at the borders of the great powers. Let us therefore ensure that in future any euro spent in the Russian Federation is spent to alleviate the suffering of the people who are the victims of war, to the exclusion of any other objective.

Political group: PSE
I should like to thank Commissioner Liikanen for that answer, even though I am not entirely happy with it for obvious reasons. I wonder if the matter has been shunted backwards and forwards between different EU Commissioners without anyone in the end taking real responsibility for the issue. Tasks of that kind do exist. The second thing I want to ask about is whether you believe that the matter has been handled in an acceptable way. Thirdly, how, in the light of enlargement towards the East, do you interpret the decision to remove resources from a practical fight in Sweden, Austria and Germany against child sex tourism when we know that there are special problems involving the sex trade and trade in human beings in a large number of the candidate countries? Fourthly, President of the Commission Prodi recently attacked the power of the Council of Ministers. What would you think if, during its Presidency, the Swedish Government demonstrated this power by taking action to reinstate economic support for ECPAT Sweden?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, let me put to you another suggestion, one that will, I think, represent an even better solution to this. In Mr Elles' Amendment No 22, there is a paragraph 27a, which deals with the same point and incorporates what Mrs Mann is talking about. I put it to you that we should get rid of the whole of paragraph 15 and insert Mr Elles' paragraph 27a in its place. We will then have resolved the whole problem and could have the support of a broad majority for it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Spanish version of paragraph 30 says that 'no se debe contar de antemano con la aprobación de la opinión pública en los Países candidates [the approval of public opinion in the candidate countries cannot be counted upon on in advance]'. This is clearly absurd, in view of what our colleagues said to us yesterday, and therefore what it should say is that 'no se debe dar por descontada la aprobación de la opinión pública de antemano [the approval of public opinion cannot be taken for granted in advance]'. I believe this is an important point and it is worth correcting it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the advertising of tobacco products, this report and proposal for an amended directive has been called into question from various points of view. There are also amendments that would discard the whole of Parliament's proposal. We are of the opinion, however, that there are very significant differences between the issue of tobacco advertising and this directive. We feel it is self-evident that Article 95 should form the legal basis for this directive together with Article 133, as the committee are now proposing in Amendment No 1. The directive on which the proposal builds is based on Article 95 and the issue is, of course, directly concerned with the content of products on the internal market. We have a positive opinion of the contents of the report and support its main points. It is particularly important to establish clear limit values for the hazardous substances contained in the smoke. Amendment No 2 concerning carbon monoxide is, therefore, particularly positive. We can also support the proposals concerning the size and wording of the warning text. In this case, there is such a small difference between the different points of view that it should not be difficult to reach a compromise. We are also in favour of the ban on habit-forming additives. As regards export from the European Union of cigarettes that are banned within the Union for health reasons, we consider that the only reasonable and consistent solution is to put a stop to this. There is no reason to provide special conditions and extended transitional periods where the export of cigarettes is concerned, as compared with their manufacture for use within the European Union. The report also mentions special brands of cigarettes that are marketed as ‘mild’, ‘light’ and such like. This is a marketing strategy which is often misleading and which gives the false impression that these cigarettes do not carry the same risks as other cigarettes. We do not see any reason for allowing this type of marketing and regard the committee's present position in this area as being in danger of leading to far too many opportunities for exceptions. Even if subsidies for tobacco-growing are not regulated by this report, it is impossible not to touch on the issue, which constitutes one of the absurdities of the European Union. It is unreasonable for the Union to put the large sums of money into tobacco-growing that it does today. This is inconsistent, and it is becoming expensive. This money could be put to good use elsewhere. Therefore, the only sensible thing to do is to phase out the subsidies gradually and for the farms affected to be given help to convert to other crops. When this report was previously discussed, the issue of Swedish snuff was brought up. I do not consider there to be any reason to change the current rules, i.e. an exception in the case of Sweden, nor, at the same time, the right of countries which do not wish to sell snuff to uphold their ban. I am therefore pleased that no amendment has been made to that regulation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have the report before us, undoubtedly so that we can make improvements to it, as the rapporteur, Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines said. I also think, however, that we ought again to use this morning’s discussion to raise awareness once more and to make people aware of education again. We are all delighted with the new achievements of our age: travel, the Internet, mobile phones and simultaneous television broadcasts from the other side of the world, as we are now experiencing again with the Olympic Games in Australia. These are all achievements, but also signs of the time and of the society in which we live: the information age, the information society, the age of knowledge, technology and globalisation, to mention but a few designations. All are characterised by a very rapid pace of change and by an enormous number of transformations, indeed revolutions, which have been triggered, and continue to be triggered, by the new knowledge. The dissemination of information and knowledge is now incomparably faster and more extensive than it was even a few years ago. People must be prepared for this vertiginous and fascinating roller coaster of change. From the earliest days of childhood, from schooldays in fact, the key words have been lifelong learning. That tenet is now only half the truth, however, and it cannot remain so, for the processes of change and transformation in society, in the world of work and in the environment are by no means over after school or after training, but continue and become still more marked. Human beings must therefore learn to meet these challenges themselves and to adjust to lifelong learning. Only in that way can we all, in future, also participate in the fine achievements of our age, that is to say, hold our own in the ever more rapidly changing competitiveness of life – both personal and professional – and both seize and help to create opportunities. In order to help these insights come to the fore throughout Europe, 1996 was designated the European Year of Lifelong Learning. With relatively modest financial resources of ECU 8.4 million from the European Union, a much welcomed ECU 34 million was raised for the project with the help of partner countries from the European Economic Area: Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Norway. In many congresses, seminars and PR events, there was constructive discussion in all areas of society of the necessity and opportunities for rethinking education in the direction of lifelong learning. These are opportunities – especially for Europe and European integration – of which we can avail ourselves here and now: knowledge of other languages, other cultures, other ways of life, everything that is so important for us as Europe grows together. The European Year of Lifelong Learning set us thinking in a way which must be continued and consolidated.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, smoking kills! Tobacco is the only product that when used as directed, kills its consumers. Yet we have the absurd situation where additives used in Gummibärs, for example, are better labelled than the additives in tobacco products. It is preposterous that it is unclear, for example, as to whether ammonia, which increases addiction, has to be labelled or not. It is also absolutely grotesque that we are going to carry on allowing advertisers to use such misleading descriptions as light or ultramild. I feel people should be left in no doubt as to the fact that there should be a ban on this. It is also hypocritical that many people lament the risks smoking poses to health on the one hand – from hardening of the arteries in the leg to cancer – and the associated costs incurred by the national economy, yet they are against the risks being stated in large and clear lettering on the packet. I believe it has become evident – and this is borne out by experiences in Canada – that the larger the health warning on the packet, the greater the deterrent effect. As a Parliament, we have really nailed our colours to the mast where the ban on tobacco advertising is concerned. I make no bones about the fact that I think it is disgraceful how the Red-Green Federal Government followed the former Federal Government’s example in lodging a complaint against this at the European court of Justice. However, I hope we really succeed in nailing our colours to the mast this week, as in the case of the ban on tobacco advertising, and that we do not bow to the pressure of industry but are able to make it clear that everything possible must be done to protect children and young people, in particular, from taking up smoking.

Political group: Verts-ALE
External military interventions are usually a bad thing, as they involve a major power trying to impose its will on the warring parties from outside, without the consent of those parties. Or they involve taking sides and giving support to one warring party based on the major power’s own interests or ideologies. That is what people call ‘peace-enforcing’, the imposition of peace. Peace that is not supported by the parties involved will lead to a resumption of conflict after the withdrawal of the new occupiers. My party, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, repudiates wars like those in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, nor do we support the construction of an integrated EU army. We do support ‘peace keeping’, helping to maintain peace at the request of both parties in a conflict. This is geared to keeping the warring parties apart and avoiding new disasters. This is why we support this kind of military presence in Cyprus, Kosovo and Macedonia. If the UN does not bear the direct responsibility for this, then better the EU than NATO with its bias toward American war policy. That is why I am voting against the majority of the Group and for the EU taking over peace-keeping responsibilities in the north-west of the Republic of Macedonia. - Personal data (B5-0187/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Papayannakis and Mr Lannoye. I think that the two reports complement each other and really do contain some innovative and very interesting proposals. I think that people’s awareness regarding the environment has increased a great deal, as have the political measures taken by Heads of State and Government on the issue. However, I believe that the raising of awareness and the political measures taken have both been inadequate, if not nominal. As far as awareness is concerned, we are well aware that natural resources are being exhausted, that there are mammals, birds and plants that are in danger of extinction, that there is a growing population dying of hunger and suffering from poverty. We know all of this and we are environmentally aware, but we keep increasing consumption, and we in the developed world, which represents 20% of the world population but uses 80% of its resources, are the ones responsible for it. I say that the political measures are also nominal because the majority of them, following international agreements, are not carried out or are inadequately carried out. The Kyoto Protocol has still not been ratified by the majority of the countries, after ten years of debate. The United States are not going to sign it and, to give an example of a country that has agreed to it, my country, Spain, has increased emissions by 33 % compared with what it had agreed to do. I think that this is how things stand now, and at present, after the Barcelona Summit and Johannesburg, in which the issue of the environment was not sufficiently dealt with, I would not ask for the ambitious programme that too many people are asking for here. I think that if in Johannesburg we manage to fulfil all the previous commitments, if we manage to ensure that at least a percentage of international transactions are used for those poor countries, and if we manage to change the values that are currently damaging us, we will have achieved a great deal.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, I believe the crisis in Kosovo showed, among other things, that international crisis management cannot be left to NATO alone in the world of the twenty-first century. In fact, the leading role played by the United States is not as unproblematic as some might think. It was found in Kosovo that military personnel can sometimes be wiser and more realistic than politicians, so we need not necessarily fear military personnel. On behalf of the Group, I would say that the majority of our Group seem to have come to accept that the European Union could develop common crisis management strategies but we want to impose clear conditions and frameworks for this. Firstly, foreign policy must be consistent; its different aspects must form a coherent whole that leads us in the same, and not different, directions. Foreign policy must also be open. Mr Solana, I have to mention that I have personally fought against the Security Council, of which you are leader, in court for more than two years, using non-military means, to obtain a certain document which concerns compliance on the part of Member States with criteria relating to the export of weapons. I hope that you will increase transparency in the work of the Council in foreign policy also. Another condition that is very important is that the management of civil crises must be improved markedly. What you said is quite right: progress has been made in this area during the Finnish Presidency. Keep the two operations together. It is not necessarily a good thing to divide the tasks, with the High Representative taking responsibility for military crisis management and the member of the Commission for civil crisis management. They have to be kept together. Thirdly, we want to lay down the condition that each operation must be independent from the others, and decisions on it must be able to be taken separately. The Member States must be able to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether they should become involved in these operations. The criteria must naturally be the same for all. We cannot accept a situation where different criteria have been applied in Kosovo and in Chechnya, for example. Finally, the main question here is how relations between the European Union and NATO will develop. Eleven of the present Member States belong to NATO, but four do not. We have to avoid a situation where the European Union is becoming an actual pillar of NATO in Europe. It is important that NATO and the European Union remain, in reality, distinct from one another. Such an asymmetric structure can help promote peace in the world. It does not imply weakness; it may also be a resource. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
May I congratulate the rapporteur on this important report – a crucial element of which is the definition of participation, ensuring that people can influence plans and programmes at different stages of the process and receive proper feedback so that they know that the issues they have raised have been dealt with seriously. It is essential that consultation is not restricted in a way that in practice would make it meaningless – in other words, that authorities themselves could define the people who would be affected and they would be the only ones consulted. I have a case in Swansea in my own constituency where a local authority is building an incinerator on the border of two counties and has consulted its own constituents, but not the people of the other county who live closer to it and who will be more affected and are now protesting vigorously against the plans. This legislation could prevent that kind of situation arising. Just as important it gives the public access to a review procedure, and so I ask for support for the amendments of my group which seek to strengthen the report in line with the Aarhus Convention.

Political group: Verts-ALE