GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I too wish to raise exactly the same issue: as you know, the third round of talks between the two communities is about to start. Despite the fact that the Greek-Cypriot side has no intention of boycotting the third round of talks, the Turkish side has invaded the buffer zone, creating problems for the United Nations Organisation. I should like to ask the European Parliament, through its President, to write to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, on this matter and to draw attention to Turkey, a candidate country which, in essence, is inciting the Turkish-Cypriot side to take certain measures or is tolerating the measures being taken. Turkey cannot behave in this way and continue on its path towards Europe and the European Parliament should make that clear.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this proposal finally delivers on the 50-year-old promise to allow EU citizens and their families to reside in another Member State. It is great news for the cause of freedom. But to listen to some, including 'conservatives' in the British Labour Government, you would think it was all about facilitating illegal immigration and terrorism. It is time for this misinformed hysteria in the UK to stop. There are sufficient safeguards in this measure and in EU law. On the definition of family that EU citizens can take with them when they move, this must at least respect the law in the country of original residence. Why should a Swedish gay registered partnership lose all recognition of status when they move, for instance, to Italy? Governments, including the British one, are very happy to champion the mutual recognition principle in criminal penalties, including the European arrest warrant. Let us also champion it for freedom and rights for people, including British people.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, for the purpose of correction, I refer to Amendment No 17, which amended Mr Vitorino's original draft to indicate that application may be made by anyone who ‘is legally present or already present there and has entered legally in order to reside there.’ The justification states that ‘individuals who are illegally present in the country should, however, also be offered the opportunity’ to obtain a contract of employment. That means that the application is to be made on the basis of illegality; even your own justification says so.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, I would like to answer two questions. Firstly, what benefit do women in Europe, in particular, stand to gain from this charter and secondly, how does gender mainstreaming, referred to in Article 3, paragraph 2, of the EC Treaty, fit in with this charter? The issue of equality between men and women in Europe, in terms of statutory standardisation, is suffering under the rule of the restrictive headstart. The old equal pay clause underlies a whole structure of equal treatment legislation which now forms part of the acquis communautaire. These legally binding instruments have proven to be a shot in the arm in the equal treatment of men and women in the Member States. But as these directives and recommendations originated in the objectives of the internal market, it is only logical that they are all confined to the sphere of employment and working conditions. As was recently apparent from the package of draft measures on fighting discrimination based on Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, there is still great reluctance to view the equal treatment of men and women as an issue which also requires measures outside the labour market. This is a misconception in my view. Discrimination against women is a fact which, unfortunately, is inherent in our social fabric as such. This is why there is still a need to give the equal treatment principle a firm basis in law across the board. An explicit recognition in the forthcoming European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights of a wholesale ban on gender-based discrimination and with it, inclusion in the treaties themselves, would then also create the necessary scope for a new EU policy to promote the position of women in all relevant social fields. Madam President, in many discussions on fundamental rights, the rights of women are often relegated to a specific rights’ category. Women as a social category are then lumped together with a host of others such as the handicapped, the elderly, immigrants, etc. Who am I to protest that one type of discrimination is worse than another? Thinking in terms of a hierarchy of fundamental rights is a trap which we should avoid. But this is precisely why we need to underline that women’s rights are not about rights of a specific type of human being which, due to their deviation from the male standard, should be entitled to special protection. Nor are we talking about the rights of a group, as if women were a national minority. The rights of women form an integral part of universal human rights, fundamental rights or civil rights. Specific women’s rights do not exist. What does exist is mainstreaming a gender perspective in the discussion of fundamental rights. Issues such as the rights of the family require gender mainstreaming. For the rest of my speech, I would refer to the written version which I have yet to publish.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr President of the Commission, enlargement is more than just an economic matter, it is a great political event rooted in the history of the European peoples, in the culture they share: Roman law, Christianity, the universities and Enlightenment. It is now our duty to rediscover this cultural unity which must consolidate the necessary and, I would argue, right and proper, irreversible decision to enlarge the Union. The Commission, the Council and Parliament have the task of involving the citizens in this process, as President Prodi has stressed. The Irish vote must certainly make us stop and think: we must not get things out of proportion but it is certainly our duty to involve the European people in the important matters concerning the Union. In its endeavours to achieve the goal of enlargement, the Commission can count on the full, firm support of my political party and the new Italian government, which is involved in a fresh, incisive Europeanist initiative, as Mr Solana and Mr Giscard d'Estaing have stressed and acknowledged today as well. However, because it is our duty to involve the peoples of Europe, I feel that an initial stage should be also envisaged in the reform process in which the European Parliament, the national parliaments, the governments and the Commission work together to prepare for the 2003 Intergovernmental Conference. President Prodi, I agree that the debate must not be confined to an elite: there must therefore be less elitism and more parliamentarianism in the reform processes. As regards the other matter, relations between the United States and the European Union, I feel that we must foster transatlantic dialogue and, therefore, I welcome President Bush's visit. Finally, we must be committed to the Middle East peace process. The European Union must do everything in its power; in the future, once the most difficult stage is over and recourse to terrorism has been avoided, it should take action to assist the economic growth of the territories surrounding Israel as well, for they must not be subjected to economic as well as ethnic and political tension. I feel that the European Union will be able to play a major role in this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Our group has decided to abstain from the vote for the following reasons: Firstly, because an amendment has been tabled proposing that the Commission’s proposal be rejected by Parliament and because we do not believe that this proposal responds to this Parliament’s minimum expectations. The ’s amendment was rejected by a margin of 11 votes, and we therefore feel it is coherent with our initial position to abstain from the final vote on the text. Secondly, our group considers it necessary to abstain because its two amendments on time limits for the end of marketing and for the end of experimentation have not been accepted. Since our group is in favour of setting dates, both for the end of marketing and for the end of experimentation, we consider it appropriate to extend the deadlines proposed by the rapporteur in such a way that the prohibition of marketing will take place within ten years of the approval of the revision and the prohibition of experimentation will be delayed by two years, in the event that alternative available methods are not found for cases in which ingredients, or mixtures of ingredients, may cause serious dermatological or ocular damage

Political group: PPE-DE
Although the Common Position takes up a number of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament at first reading, particularly those relating to the accident in Toulouse and the time limits for application of the directive, the fact is that it is essential to reiterate certain amendments that were not taken into consideration by the Council. I therefore argue that, in view of the recent mining accidents, it is fundamental that these amendments should be included in the scope of the Seveso II Directive. Moreover, it is important that the sites with the highest accident risk should be mapped and represented graphically. - Report Färm (A5-0173/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities was right to also look into the opportunities and obligations that the existence of the EU Structural Funds can deliver for promoting equal opportunities. The Treaty of Amsterdam and the regulations relating to the Structural Funds also make mention of this. In practice little has been achieved when it comes to infrastructure, transport, environment, urban and rural development, fishing, enterprise policy, the information society, research, technological development, training and in-service training. The rapporteur is asking for support for better child care, care for the elderly, better organisation of working hours and a different division of tasks within families. She is also asking for a balanced participation of women in bodies that select and make decisions about projects at local, regional and national levels, and for sanctions against projects that do not meet these criteria. I support this proposal because everything it contains is fair and well-intentioned. However, I do not think it will do much to solve the present problems. The role of the Structural Funds is going to diminish for the current EU Member States or even disappear altogether, in favour of projects for the newcomers. It will be good if feminist criteria are taken seriously into account from the beginning for these new projects.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I hereby declare that I abstained from voting on the McCarthy report. My reason for doing so is that Parliament needs to send a clear signal to the Commission to the effect that the only way to get a majority at second reading is to take Parliament’s criticisms seriously.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I very much regret, also on behalf of my group, that a minority has succeeded in introducing extraneous ideological factors into the resolution concerning necessary changes to the way in which patent law keeps pace with biotechnology. This neither helps clarify patent law in the European Union nor makes for better and urgently needed protection against the rampant commercialisation of the building blocks of life. On the contrary. In its current form, the adopted text further reduces the minimum level of protection provided under the 1998 directive on bio-patents. In this way, there is a growing danger that the genetic inheritance of mankind will be taken from the community as a whole and made into a profitable commodity for the few. In order to counter this danger, my group and I have voted in such a way as to reject any elements which have nothing to do with patent protection for biotechnological inventions. In the end, we have voted as a unit against the resolution. That does not prevent me and my group from campaigning, in the future too, for a situation in which ethical limits upon medical research and therapy are all complied with. It is human dignity which provides the decisive standard.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me, in common with many others, to thank Mr Böge for his extraordinary work on a report in which the focus lies so incredibly clearly upon enlargement and its necessary economic conditions. As Members of the European Parliament, we have the opportunity – especially during the forthcoming Seville Summit – to put that pressure on the Council which is obviously needed in order to make it clear what the remaining enlargement negotiations are about. Enlargement is the EU’s absolutely most important priority. It is quite unacceptable again to postpone clarifying matters and taking a stance now that enlargement is effectively around the corner. Continued delays and conflicting signals on the part of the Council concerning the ground rules in the common agricultural market for established and new Member States in an enlarged EU are in danger of causing us not to have the privilege of welcoming ten new Member States at the beginning of next year. It is also important in this context to bear in mind that it is not in actual fact only the EU which is to decide on this matter. Support for an enlarged EU is also required in terms of the referendums being held in the new Member States for the purpose of ratifying the treaties. Enlargement to include the countries of Eastern Europe is an historic task, and the biggest and most important that any of us will ever get to experience. Anyone who tries to prevent or halt this process is assuming a very large responsibility. I hope that this is also appreciated by the Heads of State and Government meeting in a few weeks’ time at the Seville Summit.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin by thanking my dear friend and colleague, Mr Sterckx, for his excellent work. As a Scandinavian, I usually only say thank you when there really is cause for doing so. As Dirk and the rest of you know, most of the cargo on the Prestige came from Saint Petersburg through the Gulf of Finland, one of the seas that is extremely close to me and that is now already very polluted and vulnerable. What happened in Galicia could have happened in the Gulf of Finland. That is something we have said on numerous occasions. That is why we feel such solidarity with our friends in Galicia. We know that Russia’s oil exports, specifically through the Gulf of Finland, will be multiplied perhaps five- or six-fold in the course of the next few years. The same applies to the cargoes transported from Murmansk. It is not only the North Sea and the other areas mentioned that will be affected. Ladies and gentlemen, I would ask the Commission to devote special attention to Port State Control in the forthcoming progress report on the candidate countries. Obviously, there is still a great deal to be done in this area in order to ensure that the control is economically and legally independent. Unfortunately, we have heard of examples showing that this is not the case. Port State Control cannot operate unless it is independent and impartial. I therefore hope that the forthcoming progress report will support this. Furthermore, I want to inform you all, together with the Commissioners, that the parliamentary assembly for the Baltic states, which met at the beginning of September in Uleåborg in Finland, was in favour of rapidly phasing out single-hull tankers and declaring the Baltic, or parts of it, to be a particularly sensitive sea area, or PSSA, a matter also addressed in paragraph 25 of the report. The important thing about this meeting was that members of the Russian state parliament and of Russian regional parliaments also supported this. In the continued debate, it is important for us to recognise that we shall get nowhere concerning many sea areas in Europe if the negotiations with third countries and with Russia do not produce results. The EU cannot attend to this alone. Instead, we need such support as we can get. That is why it is important that, in particular, the work concerning the Baltic take place in cooperation with colleagues. That is a road on which we can make further progress.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we used to have a joke in the United Kingdom about there being fog in the Channel and the continent therefore being cut off. Now it seems more a case of people loose in the Tunnel and trains and trade cut off – which is altogether more serious. The effects of the restrictions are very damaging to free movement and employment: thousands of jobs are at risk. I have to say that for those affected, removing the restrictions by June sounds a very long way off. The problem is the proximity of the Sangatte camp for refugees: it is too close and should be moved, and makes policing very difficult. This Tunnel is an asset and enterprise which is jointly owned and benefits both France and Britain, as well as the wider Community of Member States. It is probably the single most important physical link drawing Britain and the continent together. The difficulty of policing illegal immigrants is damaging to this process and must be resolved soon. I call on the Commission to press the French authorities to take action. I call on the United Kingdom government to offer more assistance to its French counterparts and to the hauliers and businesses concerned, rather than seeming to turn a blind eye to their concerns and difficulties and spending more time harassing truck drivers and train operators with prosecutions and fines. The authorities need to take action and not take it out on other innocent parties.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission proposal deserves Parliament’s support. It should be our mission to encourage the taking of still greater steps, but the committee’s report is a disappointment as far as that is concerned. Firstly, the committee considers the issue from many angles but does not question the fact that the system only applies to commercial transport. Secondly, the committee still seems to think that road tolls should cover the costs of road maintenance. Thirdly, with the approach the committee is proposing the EU will not achieve sufficient lift-off as far as sustainable development is concerned. I now want to go into rather more detail regarding these three factors. In the adoption of road toll systems one has to be wary of a situation where an increase in private transport completely cancels out the benefit of a reduction in commercial transport. The only sustainable solution is for the system to apply to all road transport in the same way right from the start. This solution is not unfair to private motorists because satellite positioning equipment is rapidly becoming more and more common in cars. There will be a significant proportion of them by 2008 when the European Galileo system becomes operational. It is essential to take the external costs of traffic into account so that with any road toll imposed the marginal cost matches the ceiling amount charged. In this way traffic would not have to pay the present external cost, but one based on a new balanced charge that reflects the volume of traffic. What should therefore be regarded as the prime objective is that the volume of traffic on a route or in a zone where charges apply is at an optimal level at different times and that what constitutes that optimal level is determined by market mechanisms. In my view these conditions will be met most easily with satellite positioning systems and that is why we should venture to agree, as the Commission has proposed, to adopt this technology promptly as a basis for a European system. In this way bringing technology onto the market will also mean large-scale benefits that transport companies above all will enjoy in terms of decreasing costs. I imagine people are muttering to themselves about the inadequacy of legislative powers. I would remind them, however, of the ever greater part traffic plays as a producer of carbon dioxide emissions. Although the car industry, with EU support, has done and is doing important work to develop low emission vehicles there is good reason to introduce road toll systems specifically to reduce emissions. I refer to Article 174 of the Treaty on European Union. IN THE CHAIR: MR INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE