GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
First of all, I must admit that this explanation of vote is difficult. Like everybody else we are appalled by the attacks that took place on 11 September. It is frustrating to decide not to use additional means to fight those who committed them. We are, however, convinced that it is a choice governed by reason, and not by an instinctive reaction, which is legitimate but dangerous, motivated by anger and pain. Apart from the fact that we refuse to set a precedent on urgent procedures, which could then dramatically increase, we have questions regarding the list proposed in the annex, which reveals genuine and fundamental problems. Of course, we are in total agreement with the principle of implementing specific measures against people and goods linked to terrorism, in order to fight it more effectively. There are too many areas of doubt in this well-known list: – How can we support it when we do not even know how it was put together? – On what criteria were these people selected? We know that there is no definition of terrorism in international law, and that it is therefore impossible to set out objective criteria for what constitutes belonging to a terrorist movement. All that is needed is to observe how easily some people call any behaviour that goes against prevailing thought ‘terrorism’, such as is the case with the anti-globalisation activists or those who are against NGOs, in order to be worried about possible confusions. Moreover, what about certain general legal principles such as: – Presumption of innocence? Benefit of the doubt? – And who has the burden of proof? (Speech cut short pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has had fishing agreements with Morocco since 1992. The agreement currently in force expired at the end of November last year. Under this agreement, around 500 boats from the European Union, 50 of which are Portuguese, have had access to Moroccan waters at an annual cost of around EUR 125 million. As we imagined, the difficulties in negotiating with the Moroccan authorities have been considerable. Morocco values its fishing resources very highly and it is constantly besieged by the great international fishing powers such as Japan, South Korea, and Russia to allow them to fish even more in its waters. It should also be pointed out at this juncture that the fishing agreement with Morocco is part of a broader partnership and cooperation framework under which the European Union also grants Morocco considerable trade concessions and considerable support for its development. I wish to highlight four points in this speech. Firstly, it must be emphasised that the fishing agreement with Morocco is by far the European Union’s most important agreement, representing more than 30% of all catches by the Community fleet in third-country waters. The 30 000 jobs directly or indirectly dependent on this agreement may seem few in terms of the European Union as a whole, but because they are concentrated in small fishing communities, mainly on the Spanish and Portuguese coasts, where there is no tradition or potential for economic conversion, the loss of these jobs would spell disaster. Secondly, I must stress, with considerable bitterness, the lack of openness on the part of the Moroccan authorities involved in the negotiations. I do not understand their position for two reasons. Firstly, in the meantime they have been granting private licences to various shipowners from other countries, which contradicts their argument that their difficulties in negotiating with the European Union are to do with the need to conserve fish stocks. Secondly, Morocco’s inflexibility is also incomprehensible given our willingness to open up our markets to Moroccan products, and the aid that has been provided under the general cooperation agreement with Morocco. Another aspect that I wish to highlight is the fact that at the end of this month, temporary aid paid to fishermen and shipowners in compensation for this year of inactivity comes to an end. This situation is unsustainable, since they would all rather work than receive aid. The Commission and the Council of Ministers must shoulder their responsibilities, which involves not merely extending aid until the situation is resolved, but also reviewing the general framework for cooperation with Morocco in the event that this situation drags on. Finally, as the body responsible for conducting the negotiations, the Commission must keep Parliament properly informed about what is going on, since we find the current situation quite incomprehensible. Equally incomprehensible is the passivity of the Fisheries Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, social exclusion is a complex topic. The word alone gives rise to a whole range of discrepancies. We know that the Commission introduced the concept of social exclusion some time ago because the word poverty was regarded as too strong by some Member States. However, we are now facing a certain inconsistency. One could imagine that it might be possible to be a socially excluded millionaire. This might well be conceivable but this is not what is at issue here. What we are ultimately talking about here is mainly money and anything related to it. Then there is, of course, the question whether poverty in Europe is the same as poverty in the developing world. No, that is not the case. People in Europe should be compared with people in Europe. It is not acceptable for someone who is in dire straits to be compared with someone in the developing world. That would be all too easy for the governments. There is nevertheless a problem, namely that in the system of subsidiarity, most of the responsibilities lie with the Member States, even with the local councils, in fact. We can naturally give a whole host of useful recommendations in this matter. We can conclude agreements and make comparisons. This is all possible. The problem can, in fact, only be solved at the lowest possible geographical level. This is sometimes overlooked by many. It is as if we would be able to solve the entire social exclusion issue in this House. This is impossible. What we can do, however, is exchange information, set good examples and agree on common issues up to a point, but these common issues should not have a counterproductive effect. I am of the opinion that we in Europe have not particularly improved the position of children by taking a large number of ideologically inspired measures in the past. We must not overlook that either. We are unable to do this; that is a task for the Member States. We can, in this context, only give a few wise lessons and leave it at that. The rapporteur has, in my view, written a good report, but has at times passed over these wise lessons.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I first of all compliment Mrs Ries on her excellent and sound report? We are talking today about the limitations of introducing on the market and using certain hazardous substances and preparations, especially flame retardant agents such as pentabromodiphenyl ether. Risk assessments have shown, as Mrs Ries has just said, that the use of pentabromodiphenyl ether carries risks for the environment and public health, because this bromide-based, flame retardant agent is used in the production of furniture and upholstery. So for this reason, in the interests of public health and the environment, the marketing and use of pentaBDE and all articles containing pentaBDE must be prohibited. As alternative flame retardants are available, fire and environmental risks will not increase as a result of this ban. Besides penta, two other bromide-based flame retardants are available on the market, namely decaBDE and octaBDE. Octa is mainly used in plastic office equipment and in components of household appliances. In dealing with the directive on the limitation of the use of certain hazardous substances in electric and electronic equipment, this House has already come out in favour of a gradual ban on all PDBEs in specific uses by January 2006. The possible risks of octa and decaBDE are being evaluated at present and the results of this study will be submitted to the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment by the end of this year. With regard to decaBDE, on which there are as yet no negative conclusions, the ban must, in the view of the Group, be revocable, hence dependent on the results of the risk assessment which will be available before the end of the year. For octaBDE, however, I share the opinion of Mrs Ries that the use of this substance must be banned forthwith, even though the assessment of the risks is not yet concluded. The first known results of the risk assessments for octaBDE, which are at present being carried out in the United Kingdom as regards the impact of the environment and in France as regards the consequences for public health, show that with this substance there are clear risks for human health and the environment. The precautionary principle, therefore, prescribes that we do not wait to impose a ban on this substance until the final results of the investigation are known. Mr President, in the interests of health, the protection of European citizens, the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the internal market, on the basis of results so far known of the risk assessments of bromide-based flame retardants and on the basis of the principle of prevention, there should be a ban on penta- and octaBDE and also on decaBDE if the risk assessment expected before the end of the year shows that decaBDE gives cause for concern.

Political group: PPE-DE
The reason for this intervention is to clarify why this House should oppose the Commission’s proposals to cut subsidies for school milk by half. I am glad that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of this House rejected these proposals by bringing forward these amendments not to cut the subsidies at all and I urge everyone to support these amendments. There are several arguments for doing so. By nourishing our schoolchildren we also support our dairy farmers who need our support. But also we are preventing surpluses like those seen in the past.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, thank you very much for taking the trouble to do this. Our information – and I wish to add straight away that I really cannot believe it – is that the President-in-Office of the Council, the President of France, will only be present tomorrow for 30 minutes in order to speak. He may also hear Romano Prodi's intervention, I do not know, but he would not hear the remarks of the group Chairmen. If that were the case then I would judge this procedure to be unacceptable, and it would meet with criticism from the vast majority of our group. (Applause) I am pleased that the other groups also agree. I hope that this information is wrong, but I would ask you to convey to the French President that it is completely unacceptable for him to come here into Parliament simply to make a speech and then to take his leave and not listen to what this democratically elected European Parliament has to say. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, last week, the MEP Karla Peijs was attacked in Brussels. I would urge you to approach the Belgian Government again and to see to it that security levels are stepped up in Brussels. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is very important for the European Parliament to take part in the debate on the European Union’s attitude to the opportunities opened up by the information society, an item on the agenda for the Lisbon Summit. While stressing that many people had hoped for clearer answers in this area from the employment summit, I do not undervalue the relevance of the issue and the need to define a European strategy for the sector. We all know the Union is lagging far behind the United States in this sensitive area, which is so vital to our future. I concur with Mrs Read’s report and, borrowing an expression used here by the President of the Council, António Guterres, I want to highlight the three main deficits in the sector. First there is the pragmatic deficit. As the Read report correctly points out, the document put forward by the Commission is full of general guidelines and laudable intentions, but it is weak on concrete measures and ensuing actions. I would not like to believe the Council’s conclusions will be restricted to this list. On this issue, as on others, we do not need more statements and speeches, we need measures and decisions that can reduce the huge lead the United States has on us. Then there is the democratic deficit – which has been greater, admittedly – but it is important to combat the division between those who have access to the Internet, the new technologies and the benefits of the information society, and those deprived of them either for economic reasons, or because of insufficient technological information and education. Our first concern must be to prioritise our commitment to the educational system and in the carrier and telecommunications structures which make access to the Internet cheaper, faster and more powerful. And finally there is the investment deficit. As the report rightly affirms, the response to these problems cannot be left to the market alone. A great deal can and must be done in the health system, in public administration, in relations between governments and people, and in public services generally to ensure that Europe takes the qualitative leap we all recognise to be necessary today.

Political group: PPE-DE
As Mr Bolkestein is aware, members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, including myself, have expressed a certain concern in our previous dialogue about the risk of a proliferation of Community jurisdictions running alongside and in parallel with those of the Members. Hitherto the main thrust has been one whereby litigation is primarily focused in Member State courts but problems of interpretation of Community law are centralised in the sense of references to the Court. That has been a way of ensuring that the law is consistent throughout the Union and yet is locally administered. I would like to be assured that the Commission will consider very carefully the virtues of such an approach, because I suspect a proliferation of jurisdictions may, in the end, fragment our legal systems.

Political group: Verts-ALE
A few years ago, the people of Switzerland decided to control the heavy goods traffic through their territory. This kind of traffic is now strictly regulated. This has allowed the people in the Alpine valleys to choose real quality of life and is a positive measure for the environment and for the people. Far from welcoming this effort to protect the environment, the European Union has only one objective in the bilateral negotiations with Switzerland. It wants to make Switzerland repeal its regulations on the pretext that these form an obstacle to free competition and cause European countries to be treated differently. Actually, the EU’s goal is for profitability to gain the upper hand over ecological and social considerations. We examined with great interest the proposals aimed at developing alternative, non-polluting means of transport such as piggyback transport. In its current state, the report comes out firmly in favour of the use of lorries in Switzerland to the detriment of other means of transport. As we do not approve of this goal, we will vote against this report. - Recommendation Bodrato (A5-0079/1999) - WTO millennium round

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have before us a very important directive, aimed at creating a uniform legal basis for the prevention and control of TSEs. The objective is to gather into one dossier all regulations relating to TSEs to date. If we are to restore consumer confidence, it is essential that we do all we possibly can at all levels. I should particularly like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, for the vigour she has shown in her approach to this matter – many of her proposals deserve agreement. Mr Böge, for his part, has ensured that these views will gain wide support in this Chamber. I agree that the Commission for its part has done a good job, a job that Parliament can endorse, whereas Member States must eventually be made to understand that this matter is important and that we must gain consumer confidence. I should, however, like to draw your attention to one more issue: those countries and farms, which have escaped the animal diseases, must also be able to ensure that they will not have these problems in future. It is therefore essential that the withdrawal period relating to the transfer of animals from one farm to another be increased from two years to six years. On the whole, we must firmly hold to the notion that within the internal market, too, human health is the most important thing, and that principles of free competition only take second place. It is imperative that we bear this in mind, particularly when dealing with these food matters, which are all-important to consumers.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this explanation of vote is also shared by Arlette Laguiller and Armonie Bordes. The rapporteur’s succinct justification of his report expresses his misgivings on harmonisation with the fairly lax standards characterising the laws and common practice in some States, clearly showing the author’s desire to harmonise the right of asylum in the various countries of the European Union, but from the top. All the more so, given that a number of passages attack asylum abuses, even though governments in almost every country in Europe restrict this right, sometimes excessively stringently. This means that although, in some European countries, the application of this text could in theory improve the situation of asylum seekers, it would make it worse in others. Consequently, we have abstained from voting on this report, but we did vote in favour of the few articles, and especially the amendments, that at least express the idea that the right of asylum should be extended, and we denounce the scandalous nature of the policies of most European States, in particular France, which refuse to recognise this right, especially in the case of refugees from Algeria given the abuses by fundamentalists and the army.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, firstly, in my capacity as a member of the EU-Bulgaria joint interparliamentary delegation, I too would like to welcome the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Mr Georgi Parvanov, to the European Parliament. As regards the Marques report on rum in the French overseas territories and the Azores, how could I vote against the motion? Last night, I dreamed I saw the pirate, Captain Morgan, who said to me: ‘I have been appointed by the trade union of pirates to advise you to vote for this document, for otherwise we pirates will not be able to sing our usual refrain’ – which I will read, not sing here – ‘15 men on a dead man’s chest and a bottle of rum’. The bottle of rum is essential, and so I voted for the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, some of us appreciate your dilemma and your unwillingness to rush to judgement. If there were simple solutions to this tragedy, we would have found them by now. In the UK we gave our neighbours in France, Ireland and in the Netherlands an early warning and they acted promptly. We applaud them for what they did. But in a minefield the early warning is given by the first person to step on the mine and that was the UK. We have suffered greatly from that. Would the Commissioner confirm that this is essentially a crisis of movement? Would he accept, as the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development does not, that vaccinated animals can carry the virus? Otherwise the belated decision which the Commission took on 14 March to exclude Argentine produce would make no sense. Will he undertake with the SVC to examine the problem of long-range, unrecorded animal movements in which animals are largely treated as commodities, which has been the major factor in the spread of FMD? Would a carcass trade not be better for Europe to be considering? Finally, what is the SVC's opinion of the various methods of disposal used in the UK where a million animals have now been culled? Can he reject the false stories which have been put around by some in the UK that these methods were originally vetoed by the Commission, if that was not the case?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, following up on Mr Helmer's point on the Irish Referendum, you may recall another event last week, in the UK. Mr Helmer's party campaigned on the principle of keeping the pound against the euro. Now we all know that the British people soundly rejected his party on that policy. Will he now join me in voting to go with the euro?

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, firstly I would like to thank the Presidency-in-Office of the Council for their high level presence in this House and for their positive attitude. Last year, this Parliament was consulted twice about the establishment of a system for comparing fingerprints. In principle, the system is intended to correctly implement the Dublin Convention. On 13 April 1999, this Parliament rejected the Council’s proposal to extend the Eurodac system to illegal immigrants by means of a protocol. This Parliament was then consulted again in accordance with the provisions of Amsterdam. We were once again told that this system has to be developed in order to correctly implement the Dublin Convention. This seems all very well to me, with the limits introduced by Parliament in its last report, with the amendments which ranged from our reservations about the inclusion of children under 14 in the system to the request that this Eurodac system be only applied to the Dublin Convention. Given that we have been informed that none of our suggestions are going to be accepted, I would like to ask the Council whether it is prepared to hold a genuine dialogue with Parliament. This is not a trivial question. We are beginning to build and implement the instruments for the ‘communitisation’ of the area of freedom, security and justice and, as we will never tire of saying in this House, this cannot be done without the national parliaments and without the European Parliament, because these issues are far too important to the citizens not to be endorsed through a strong social consensus. The other question I would like to ask the Council is whether it agrees that this system should be administrated by the Commission, in which case the Commission should be provided with adequate staff and resources. Returning to the content of the report, the non-acceptance of Parliament’s amendments and the ambiguity of some of its provisions, as well as certain information that I have received, lead me to ask you, and to insist once again, what exactly are the Council’s intentions with regard to the scope and functions of the Eurodac system. I would like to ask why other foreign nationals have been included and, especially, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, whether the Council has any intention to extend the use of the Eurodac system beyond the application of the Dublin Convention. I await your responses to this question and I would like to thank you once again for coming to answer this oral question before the debate on the new Eurodac Regulations, which I hope will also reach this House. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PSE