GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has been too quick off the mark. What the Council finds important, we deem inadequate and one-sided. What I do welcome in the Council’s report is the commitment towards the Member States. That is a step forward, but the reception and protection of victims is still being afforded too little importance. More guarantees must be offered in this connection. That is why, and certainly for humanitarian reasons, we should not so much aim for interim, but permanent, residence permits. Where are the bottlenecks? Mafia groups have capitalised on the globalisation of the economy faster than anyone else. A second bottleneck is the rift between rich and poor regions; and then there is poverty. It is thus not only beneficial to launch dissuasion campaigns against the trafficking in human beings in all those countries of origin, poverty must also be addressed. We should also develop immigration policy and open up the borders more, even if this is at the expense of the countries involved. Despite this, most European countries still prefer a repressive approach in practice, which first and foremost targets the victims themselves. The heavyweights involved in the trafficking in human beings, the entrepreneurs of the trafficking in human beings, and those with vested interests usually remain out of harm’s way, and the current policy on fighting the traffickers has virtually no humanitarian dimension to speak of. And where is development cooperation in this respect? The approach must be international, but the Mafias have international, well-oiled networks at their disposal, with fiscal and financial experts and telecommunication and computer experts of the highest calibre. Those fighting these practices still need to content themselves with proportionately few people, little expertise and few tools, loopholes in legislation and still a distressing lack of actual international cooperation, despite Europol etc. A structural approach is thus necessary, both in terms of criminal law and international migration policy. I should also like to say: do not overlook corruption.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as usual, very sincerely meant congratulations to the three rapporteurs involved in this package. Liberalisation of gas and electricity is certainly part of the Lisbon Process, but this does not mean a free-for-all in the electricity and gas markets. Our concern must be for those we represent: customers both commercial and – the majority of us – domestic. We want the lowest prices possible for them in line with choice, and for choice you need information, including labelling about the source of electricity. You need reliability and no discrimination; you need help, particularly at domestic level, for energy efficiency measures; and you need strong emphasis on public service obligations. And I would like to emphasise that research and development should be a public service obligation, because in a free market research is one of the areas that is most at risk. We have amendments on subjects such as renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and combined heat and power. This is relevant. We must have joined-up thinking, and there must be references in this directive to those areas which may be covered by other directives but which must also be mentioned here. We want joined-up thinking, and we expect confirmation from the Commission that those measures, as important as these directives, will be part of the programme in the immediate future. We hope, therefore, for some limited success at Barcelona to take forward in a responsible way not a free-for-all, but a controlled competitive market.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my Group, I would like to underline that we support this resolution very strongly. At the Intergovernmental Conference, different governments have already tabled many amendments to the draft Constitution. This is already creating the danger that the draft Constitution will unravel as different bits are taken away by different governments objecting to different points. On top of that, sectoral councils different Council formations with different sectoral ministers are suddenly coming in with new proposals half-way through an IGC. These proposals focus on the particular sectors of the ministers involved, and do not take an overall view. This, for the first time, suggests that the budgetary powers of this Parliament should be reduced in comparison with their current status. We consider this to be an alarming and unacceptable way of proceeding. These positions were not staked out by any single government either at the beginning or end of the Convention, or at the beginning of the IGC. To have sectoral ministers suddenly, in the middle of the IGC, coming up with new points that were not even listed by their own governments as issues for discussion in the IGC represents a new threat and a new danger. That is why my Group as a whole vigorously supported the resolution that we have just adopted.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ‘Shaping the new Europe’ is an ambitious objective both for the Commission and for us all. Our ambitions and our work will be followed not only by people in our own countries, but also by many people outside Europe and the European Union. What sort of impression will an interested public, as well as the rest of the world, have of this five-year programme? My reply would be: a new start, a clear agenda for reform which confirms that the Union in the 2000s will not stop at being an economic community but will become a community that can be trusted and that we take seriously. The Commission is correct in stating that the Union intends to develop and safeguard the welfare state in an age of globalisation. It foresees a just and more effective Europe that also recognises its responsibilities beyond its own borders out of solidarity and enlightened self-interest. Consequently, we see poverty and exclusion as the greatest enemies of peace and freedom. I concur with what other members of my political group have said and I commend the tone of your document. However, there are two omissions which need to be addressed in our future work. The first concerns women, gender and women's rights. You talked about how women can help in increasing production and growth. That is important, but equality is not only necessary for productivity, but also to make our societies more democratic. It is therefore noticeable that 'equality', 'gender' and 'women' are barely mentioned in 'Shaping the New Europe'. You mentioned 'women' in your speech, but they are not referred to in the context of the strategic goals. Is that because mainstreaming is already so widespread in the Commission that there is no need to mention women? What other explanation could there be for omitting women? The EU must not take on a masculine persona. My other question concerns Africa, which is the only continent not mentioned in 'Shaping the New Europe'. Africa has the largest number of refugees in the world, the most overall poverty and a debilitating AIDS epidemic. I know that Commissioner Nielson and some of the other Commissioners are doing a fine job, but the rest of the Commission also needs to focus more clearly on that continent, partly by including it among its strategic goals. Finally, I welcome the Commission's statement and the fact that this says for the first time that the EU is prepared unilaterally to introduce measures to make it easier for developing countries to gain access to our markets. I would merely ask when this is likely to take effect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not need to go over the issues which have been very succinctly summarised by Mr Patten in particular – except I would re-emphasise the danger that this action by the Senate may give the wrong message to the hawks in the Russian Duma who have so far failed to respond to nuclear disarmament initiatives. I would also mention the impact this has on the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is due to be reviewed next year because that is based on the premise that existing nuclear powers work towards disarmament. That premise must now be called into question. And all this despite the fact that the Test Ban Treaty would have frozen forever US nuclear superiority. That is the stupidity of this. But this is actually about a broader issue. This is really about domestic US politics. If, for example, we look at the history of western policy towards former Yugoslavia, we see the effectiveness of that ebbed and flowed with the ebb and flow of US domestic politics. I would ask Commissioner Patten, if he is still listening, whether or not he agrees with me that this reinforces the need for an effective European Foreign Security Policy and European Defence Policy where we would be capable of taking autonomous action – not to be independent, but rather to protect our security from being blown around constantly in the winds of US domestic policies and US presidential elections.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate Mrs Sandbæk and also Commissioner Nielson for his clear political direction on this issue. His very significant decision to substitute the funding through UNFPA that the Bush Administration wrongly withdrew is a hallmark of his distinguished record as Commissioner for Development. The European Union and Parliament, this week, have been subject to fundamentally misleading lobbying and publicity concerning the purpose of this regulation. For example, this e-mail from one of my constituents in Cambridge accuses us of 'obliging EU Member States to fund abortions', and adds the labels 'mad', 'irrational' and 'politically correct' for good measure! As colleagues across the House have made clear, the regulation clearly incorporates the Cairo Agreement that specifically prohibits abortion as a method of family planning. Instead, these people, sadly given succour by some in the House tonight, want to prevent good reproductive health for women in developing countries, where 600 000 entirely preventable deaths of women in childbirth still occur each year. This is also absolutely essential to halt the spread of HIV-AIDS, which currently kills 8 000 people every day. This is about saving lives, not about losing them. Men as well as women must take responsibility for sexual health. As a man, that is why I joined with other men and women in this House to seek extra money this year for the reproductive health programme, in my role as budget rapporteur. One has to recall that 160 Members denied us the qualified majority, and EUR 6 million was lost. That money would have helped over 2 million women around the world to have safe pregnancy and birth. I hope that tomorrow we will be able to reinstate this funding, subject to the agreement of our budget colleagues. In April my own partner is expecting our second baby. I hope and pray that it will be a safe birth, knowing, as I do, that in Europe we have access to the best medical facilities, trained staff and health services that minimise the risks to mother and child. I do not see why any mother, anywhere in the world, should not have the right to the same protection. That is why I will support this vote and call on others to do so. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I was not in Monterrey, but I often travel in the ACP countries in Africa, where it is forcefully brought home to visitors how poor countries groan under the burden of debt. The Cologne initiative on the remission of debt, though, can help alleviate this burden and inject new resources to bring about social benefits. That is the object of the Council resolution and the Commission communication on the implementation of the HIPC Initiative. Both of these are covered by the very balanced and excellent report which Mr Mantovani has presented, which sets out the new lines on which we, representing Europe, have to focus. This, though, will not alter or reform the international financial architecture, for which there is a compelling need, quite apart from the question of how much is available in terms of resources, for there must be a paradigm shift in development cooperation, especially with the poorest countries. That will not come about if we carry on as before; rather, we too are called upon to change our approach here too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating you on staying in office. It is you that we have to thank for your constant reference to religious values in the Convention on Fundamental Rights and for your reclaiming of them. The phrase ‘European values’ is often an empty one. It could, though, be a quite different matter with this report in our hands, because this report means that there is a chance of Europe demonstrating, in a very important area, that we do things differently to the others. We can make outer space a space for peace. Then again, that has a great deal to do with principles. Here we have Amendment No 1, which says: ‘...which can also include a military application for peace-keeping operations.’ Space for peacekeeping operations – one might polemically say, yes, but against whom? Against the little men from Mars, who are on their way here, or for the use – as Mr Chichester has hinted – of a military-industrial complex yet to be created in Europe? That would be devastating. It would be precisely the dependence on the military-industrial complex that so much characterises the last remaining superpower that we would be inviting in through the back door while still talking of European values. That would be Pharisaical! I would very much recommend rejection of Amendment No 1, but the adoption of those following it. Particularly when Christian and religious values are at issue, values of which you, Mr President, have always rightly reminded us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, immigration over recent decades, which is measurable in millions, has taken place largely despite the arrangements put in place by the Member States. In most cases, the hallmark of national policies on immigration is a lack of vision and creativity and a fear of domination by foreign influences. However, there is now no disputing that immigration has taken place on a substantial scale and that immigration will and must take place in future. The detailed reasons for this are to be found in the 28 pages of the Commission communication. The Commission's shift to an active immigration policy is very much to be welcomed. The Commission recognises that pressures to migrate will continue and that regulated immigration can be advantageous for the EU, for the immigrants themselves and for their countries of origin. This change in policy does, however, also mean that decisions will have to be taken and that it is not sufficient merely to administer immigration by hiding behind general political guidelines, or, in the words of the rapporteur, on the basis of the cornerstones of immigration policy. That would mean that we would never achieve a Community migration policy as laid down in the Tampere conclusions. Instead, immigration would remain a national responsibility for Member States, with all their shortcomings, with just a basic framework at Community level. Overall, a long-term immigration policy can reduce the pressure from illegal immigration, from trafficking in human beings, from illegal employment and from the economic exploitation of migrants. Third country nationals must be given the same rights as EU citizens, as the Commission assumes in its communication, and they should be able to contribute to the local economy through their work; only in this way will the sort of integration we want take place. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to move on to the Virrankoski report. I would like to indicate to the voters that we at the European Parliament are not just big spenders but that we also look after the pennies. I was therefore disappointed to hear that Parliament did not adopt my amendment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I feel that Mr Galeote has made personal comments about me, in my capacity as President of the Spanish Socialists in this House. I would ask him to withdraw his falsities and slurs. I really do not understand Mr Galeote. I do not understand why Mr Galeote is determined to turn a European debate into a Spanish debate. I do not understand why he provokes us, I do not understand this narrow nationalist attitude, trying to bring about a debate amongst Spaniards, when what we should do is resolve – as the Commissioner has said – a problem which is European and which should be resolved from a European perspective. However, Mr Galeote, from one Spaniard to another, I will define what I think of your attitude by means of two traditional sayings. The first is that ‘offence is not caused by those who want to but by those who can’, and the second, which is also very traditional and descriptive, because we all have memories and we all have history, Mr Galeote, is that ‘the thief believes that everybody is like him’. History has recorded what your attitudes have been and what our attitudes have been and still are, the attitudes of the Spanish Socialists here in this Parliament and those of the Spanish Socialists down there, in the Spanish Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs could not remain silent in this debate. Thank heavens, my fellow Members have already said what needed to be said about the issue itself. I shall come back to this point. We are not terribly proud of the final result, but I should at least like to pay tribute to it, as some outcome had to be found. At this point, I should like to thank Mrs Smet, our efficient and indefatigable rapporteur, and Mr Provan, who was also the persistent and efficient chairman of our Conciliation Committees. I should like to thank all our coordinators, Mr Brok, Mr Hughes, Mrs Flautre, Mr Schmid, Mrs Lynne, who demonstrated great understanding in order to reach some sort of outcome. I should like to pay tribute to the Commission. Without wishing to embarrass you, Mrs Diamantopoulou, throughout almost all this debate Parliament has had the technical and even political support of the Commission, particularly on the important amendments. I have one small correction to make, unless I misunderstood, to what Mrs Smet has just said. It is not exactly the first successful conciliation on social matters between the European Parliament and the Council. It is the second, following the successful conciliation on the minor issue of workers working in an explosive atmosphere. This is, however, an infinitely more wide-ranging issue, of course. Mr President, I must point out how unusually tough the Council is to deal with. The political truth is that the Parliament team, in an astounding spirit of responsibility and unanimity – and you have witnessed the benign respect which I and Mr Bushill-Matthews, for example, have for each other – was remarkable for its united front as much as for its determination to succeed. Parliament made most of the running. We are not proud of the result in terms of the content. In a real democracy Parliament would have been determining the legislation. I would like to remind the Council that we are just as dedicated to achieving results, but that they must not expect Parliament to make quite so many concessions on a regular basis.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the International Criminal Court, which celebrated its first birthday yesterday, received a new poisoned gift from its Evil Fairy Godmother when the United States of America started to carry out its threat to impose sanctions on those countries that have not yielded to its pressure on them to sign bilateral immunity agreements. In the struggle between sovereignty and law regarding the new world order the United States has in this way chosen ever more obviously to maximise its own sovereignty at the expense of international law. As our ultimate purpose is to safeguard the rule of law and take a stand against war crimes and other international crimes going unpunished, it is more important than ever that we should strengthen cooperation amongst ourselves to bring about universal administration of justice, so that those guilty of these serious crimes are made to answer for their deeds properly and without exception. That means supporting the ICC in every way possible and getting rid of the giant loopholes that still exist in judicial practice, for example by increasing EU Member States’ legislative capacity for dealing with international crimes. Everybody must be equal before the law. Any retrograde steps in this area would mean a reversion to barbarism.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you, Commissioner, most warmly for making it so clear that what we are dealing with here is not of interest to Austria alone, but that this is about the legitimate enforcement of treaties between the EU and our neighbouring states. In fact, the Commission proposal for a Council resolution on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and Croatia deals simply with a matter of routine, the object of which is to make the present system of ecopoints applicable to transit traffic through the Republic of Austria binding upon Croatia. Everything that has been decided about this, Commissioner, is already the subject of an agreement under international law between the European Community and the Republic of Croatia, and must therefore be adhered to even now. It is the dates applicable under the interim agreement concluded at that time that make the submission of a resolution such a matter of urgency. As the Agreement, as the Commissioner has said, applies to the year 2003, then, as far as implementing this exchange of letters is concerned, it is already five minutes past midnight. We Austrians – myself included – cannot, then, understand the arguments that are often adduced against it, as we are inclined to see this as another attempt at obstructing the quest for a replacement for the ninth Transport Protocol in the treaty with Austria at the time it acceded to the EU. Such a thing should, though, be repudiated clearly and without equivocation. Any discussion of the ecopoint system resulting from this Common Position of the Council must be conducted in serious and reputable manner. What we will be voting on tomorrow will be the fulfilment of an international undertaking on the part of the European Union in a manner commensurate with the EU’s status as a community based on law. This is, therefore, a duty incumbent on all of us, and so I ask all members of this House to express their approval of the Commission proposal tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE