GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Council should realise that it is heading for a great row if it carries on as in its complex package of 27 December, making legal definitions of who is a terrorist without any democratic scrutiny. I predict that the Council's next step will be to institute Europe-wide bans. It would be outrageous to do that in secret and without accountability. Turning to the framework decisions on combating terrorism and the European arrest warrant, my group will support them. For a normally sensible British journalist yesterday to say that Europe blindly, on the nod, is about to indulge in its own sinister overreach, really is over the top. My group will not vote to postpone the entry into force of the European arrest warrant until there are common minimum standards of procedural law. Urgent action to catch terrorists and criminals cannot be postponed, but the habeas corpus amendment drafted so deftly by Mr MacCormick is very worthwhile. However, high minimum standards are also urgently needed in parallel. It is a fiction to say that, since we all have excellent justice systems, mutual recognition is enough. I could highlight flaws in the system of my own country – for example we have the highest number in prison of any EU State – as well as flaws in other Member States. The Council, as well as MEPs, must welcome proposals that the Commission is preparing on achieving equivalence in criminal justice standards. If some of the people who now oppose the European arrest warrant – in particular those on the right, not least in my own country – also cry 'shock! horror!' at what they might claim is harmonisation of criminal justice systems, they will be guilty of great hypocrisy. We need the European arrest warrant; we also need a programme of equivalence in common minimum high standards.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I raised the matter of Question Time yesterday. The President, as you will see from the Minutes, replied that too few questions had been received for two Commissioners, whose names were therefore removed from the list of speakers for Question Time. I checked this out. Mr Kinnock received only one question, yet his name remains on the list. Mrs Schreyer took a question from me; she is not on the list, even though other Members, such as Mr Trakatellis, addressed questions to her. So something is very much amiss in this whole business. I should like you to look into this matter and provide me with some clear information tomorrow as to why Question Time was shortened.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, concerning the use of low-frequency sonar, I will first of all raise three questions and then, in conclusion, I will make a suggestion. Firstly, as the two Members who spoke before me mentioned, this question has been discussed here, in this House, on several occasions and we have already been told, in particular by Commissioner Solbes Mira, that we needed more information. We learn today that a study has been commissioned by a Danish organisation, but it could end up seeming rather odd that additional information has been so long in coming. In actual fact, if we apply the precautionary principle in accordance with the Treaties, we already have enough proof of serious risk ensuing from the use of these sonars, in particular for whales. This justifies the immediate establishment of a moratorium on their use, in order to collect the necessary information to establish additional scientific proof. Do we really have to wait for the worst-case scenario to happen before we do something? Secondly, we are well aware of the worrying state of fish stocks today, both in Europe and on a global scale. It is not surprising that we have heard that there are elements indicating that the signals sent by these low-frequency sonars affect the movements of shoals of fish, which could carry them to dangerous zones that threaten their very existence. Can we allow ourselves the luxury of developing and using a technology that, when it is tested in peacetime, risks worsening the situation of the disappearance of fish stocks? Thirdly, the EU has taken the first steps towards a common defence policy and also a common arms industry. This will without a doubt impact on European research, industrial policy and the general development of the EU. At a time when our societies are showing a growing demand for environmentally friendly solutions, we must prove that Europe, in pursuing the Lisbon objectives, is capable of being a world leader in sustainable technologies. Will we be able to do so if we are incapable of effectively reacting to the development of the use of technologies that are as suspect as low-frequency sonars? In conclusion, it is imperative, if development is to be environmentally, socially and economically sustainable, that we do all we can as MEPs to influence, with the means available, the basic joint decisions that are being taken in the area of the arms industry. This is why I am strongly calling on Members to support my proposal to conclude this debate with a resolution in our next part-session, here, in Strasbourg. This is the only way that Parliament will have a significant position to communicate to the various actors.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioners, I think that, as you stressed at the beginning, our concern could and should focus not on declarations of principle, but on a dynamic approach; we do not merely need to protect, we need to develop an aggressive plan, because a stagnant, defensive approach is often just denial of diversity by another name. We should accept that there is an international balance of trade deficit in cultural and audiovisual products; they all flow from the other side of the Atlantic towards Europe, with very little movement in the other direction. And there is another problem closer to home; few European products travel from one corner of Europe to the other. Consequently, I think we should use the World Trade Organisation to look at the problem of the internal market which, aside from its economic dimension, is very important to European citizens and to their cultural pursuits within Europe. Music, films and audiovisual products are not travelling from one corner of Europe to the other as much as they should.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to speak in favour of the proposal, for it must stand to reason that Parliament has to keep to the basis of the Treaty. If there is the slightest suspicion that Parliament is not complying with the basis of the Treaty, then negotiations should be suspended until the matter has been clarified.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, what does the Commission intend to do about the threat that the digital divide will increase, because it affects people who are also financially badly off? Secondly, the usage rate of Internet connections amongst us in Europe is low. What does the Commission intend to do about this? Thirdly, the development of content here in Europe is also slow. It is nevertheless the key to greater action in the spirit of e-Europe. How do you intend to tackle this?

Political group: PSE
We did not reject this report, since we are in favour of cinema and culture being accessible to all, which is far from the case today. We refused, however, to vote in favour of the report, which accuses the Commission – which is incredible, given its policy! – of neglecting the industrial aspect of the audiovisual industry...only to call for more subsidies for the capital invested in this sector. We are not opposed to assisting the creation and distribution of works, but the rapporteur is more concerned about those with capital at their disposal than about spectators. We should support, for example, local authorities which are struggling to subsidise and therefore to keep open local cinemas, fulfilling an important role in distributing works cheaply amongst the general public, and encourage other local authorities to follow suit. But this is not the aim of the report, which advocates financing research and development into e-cinema, fitting cinemas with expensive equipment, recommending that we let the market take care of the rest. In other words, once again, in order to develop a so-called ‘under-capitalised’ industry, given that the private sector will not take risks in this area without a safety net, the public is being called upon to finance future private profits.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteurs for their splendid report. I do this in all sincerity and not just because it is my duty to do so. They have managed to achieve a wide consensus on a subject that is clearly onerous, difficult and complex. I would also like to thank the committee for the effort they have made in negotiations and in reaching an understanding that has resulted in this positive outcome. My fellow Member Mr Corbett, who was the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, has been kind enough to let me speak in his place. This shows the extent to which members of this committee worked in harmony with each other: a member of one particular group is prepared to allow a member of another group to replace him. We all understood that the task was to amend the Commission’s proposal in order to make it more effective. The two rapporteurs have just explained some of these amendments. I would like to refer to one of these amendments which I believe to be very important for Parliament and for the other European institutions. The amendment distinguishes between an institution supporting decisions regarding staff and the decisions themselves. The latter have to be made by each of the institutions. As for the elimination of correction coefficients for pensions, I agree with what the two rapporteurs said. I would like to make one further comment. Those who have made equal contributions during their working life as civil servants have the right to equal pensions when they retire. Mr President, this is how the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has contributed to the report. The Group of the European People’s Party will vote in favour of the report. We are convinced it represents an improvement on the Commission’s proposal and that it will make the already excellent European civil service even more dynamic and efficient. Indeed, this is the aim of the reforms. I would like to echo the previous speaker’s praise of the civil service. It is ready to incorporate the know-how of civil servants from the ten countries who will become members of the European Union next month. In this process of reunification, the European Union will practically double in size and its population will increase by a third. A large number of new civil servants from different cultures will have to be incorporated into the complex system and its administrative procedures. The new civil servants will need to assimilate to the culture of the European civil service. I think therefore we were right not to introduce a radical reform but rather a gradual one. This reform allows the most antiquated concepts to be eliminated. At the same time, it allows new civil servants to benefit from the wealth of experience of current civil servants who have served the European Union for many years. These are the staff who have ensured that the European Union is more than a mere alliance or a group of countries. They have ensured that the Union has brought peace to many and a whole host of benefits to its citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, perhaps the House would like to know that at the Joint Parliamentary Assembly held in Cape Town, which was ably co-chaired by Mrs Kinnock, we passed a very strong resolution. That is the good news. The bad news is that under the new draconian laws which have been brought in by President Mugabe, the editor of the daily newspaper which printed the resolution, in full and accurately, has been threatened and charged with a USD 2 000 fine – or two years in prison if he does not pay it. He has declared that he would rather go to prison than not tell the truth. Since this House is founded on freedom of speech, could the presidency write to Mr Mugabe and say that we would not expect any harm to come to this man and that we support freedom of speech.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, despite his twisting and squirming we are probably seeing Milosevic's final moments in power. It is a power that he has abused cynically and he is now trying to cheat democracy. We are certain that Mr Milosevic will fall, possibly this evening, certainly soon. What we are seeing on CNN is more than the fall of Milosevic. It is the end of the dreary succession of 20th century European tyrants. Serbia is suffering the final pangs of fascism on the fringes of our own Union. We will all rejoice when that suffering is over. As the drama concludes it is the duty of this Parliament, as a symbol of united free Europe, to support the crowds outside the Yugoslav parliament and to help Mr Kostunica to achieve and fulfil the mandate. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my thanks to the Commission for showing that they have the courage to present, in the past year, a proposal for a regulation on the thorny topic of local public transport. For we are not going to get away from the fact, as we see at this very moment in the case of an airline, that even in local public transport, profitability is making an entrance. We cannot therefore have the situation in which – I am involved in local politics myself – year after year, questions about the losses sustained by local public transport are simply shrugged off without further ado and with the taxpayer being left to foot the bill, without the money actually being able to be invested in making local public transport more attractive. We have to ask ourselves: why was local public transport created? It was not created in order to employ as many bus drivers as possible; on the contrary, it was created so that attractive facilities can be offered in rural and more densely populated areas to ensure the mobility of all. That is the task that is incumbent on local public transport. I think that Mr Grosch's point that we need a level playing field in a European single market is decisive. We cannot have the situation in which we introduce freedom of choice that makes it possible for certain districts, because they are under financial pressure or because they want to invest their taxpayers' money properly, to invite tenders, and then these are submitted by firms from protected monopolies. It is therefore so important that this Amendment be voted down tomorrow, so that there may be a level playing field. The Commission has laid down very tight deadlines for the duration of licences and for transitional regulations. I think we, as a committee, reached a fair compromise between the various interested parties. I would, in fact, like us to make a start on introducing time limits and licensing systems throughout Europe. Commissioner, we will be able to talk about this at future stages, in order to make it even more competition-friendly. However, let us take this first step together. This is for the good of the people of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted in favour of all the amendments seeking to introduce greater transparency as regards the system of pay, pensions and allowances to cover essential expenses, and as regards the equal treatment of Members. Having said that, we did not vote in favour of everything, because for us there are two principles which should prevail here but which have not been set out in any resolution. These are: 1 – that the pay of a Member of Parliament should be no higher than that of a qualified worker; 2 – that it should be possible for elected representatives to be removed from office at any time by the people who elected them. We are amazed that those who complain that elected representatives are cut off from the rest of the population have not thought of using this idea, which would certainly be appreciated by the general public.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I shall be very brief, Mr President, as I only wish to discuss one very specific aspect of the European Union’s external actions. I feel that, although this is a very specific issue, it nevertheless deserves our utmost consideration and is of great concern to us. I am referring to the obvious trend towards placing less and less value, in terms of both our attention and resources, on cooperation with developing countries. I realise, of course, that we have other objectives and that these too must be given the appropriate consideration. Nevertheless, I think that, because of the expectations that are created, because of the European Union’s responsibilities and even because of the new problems facing developing countries, for all these reasons, taking account of these very important parts of the world must be a major factor in determining our actions. I would emphasise one aspect in particular: we need, in this context, to have our own independent strategies that confirm the European Union’s position in this field. This concern has arisen mainly as a result of the successive budgetary cuts in the field of cooperation which, to a certain extent, illustrate and endorse the fears I have just mentioned, which I feel we must lay to rest once and for all.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if the Duma is to be able to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the matter must be put before the Duma, and that has to be done by the Russian President. I therefore propose that recital F should be worded as follows: 'Whereas the delay in transmitting the Kyoto protocol for ratification to the Duma is preventing this treaty from entering into force.' (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0052/2004) by Per Gahrton, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, containing a recommendation from the European Parliament to the Council on the policy of the European Union towards the South Caucasus (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Report: Daul (A5-0082/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have now been told several times that the EU wishes to go down the UN route, and I should therefore like to ask where that route is heading and for how long it is intended to follow it. We are agreed that Iraq must, as Mr Patten said, comply, like everyone else, with UN resolutions. Must not, however, the EU and the United States also comply with international law? Can we, on the one hand, demand that a country comply with UN resolutions and, on the other hand, accept actions that are not approved under this legal system? In short, I do not have a clear answer to that question. Will the EU demand a UN mandate from the UN Security Council before it supports possible action against Iraq? What, moreover, will happen if the weapons inspectors really and truly do not find anything? There has not of course been a shred of proof anywhere that weapons of mass destruction exist. If the inspectors really do not find anything, will the EU, then, work towards having the embargo lifted? We know that the oil for food programme means that the Iraqi people are being kept on the verge of starvation. A host of false rumours is being spread as to how much money is coming in, but the calculations made on the basis of the actual figures show that every penny is going into the oil for food programme and that that is not enough. It will not do anything to take the Iraqi people off the breadline. The programme has managed to eradicate the Iraqi middle class and is responsible for Iraq’s not having been in a position to repair its water supply, resulting in a steep increase in infant mortality. Will the EU make efforts to have the embargo lifted and will it, in that connection, remember Iraqi Kurdistan? Will it remember that there is a people in the northern part of Iraq that will be vulnerable as soon as Saddam Hussein has the opportunity to express his anger?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in Office of the Council, Commissioner Patten, if we look back over the last debate and compare it with the situation we have today, we have, I regret, no option but to conclude that the gulf in relations between the United States and Europe has at least not diminished. We all had expectations and hopes that this would change for the better in the course of time. Looking at our report, our declaration, our motion for a resolution, I see three major political themes: the strengthening of the United Nations, the situation in the Middle East and the fight against terrorism. In all three of these – when considered realistically and not just optimistically – there are major differences. Where strengthening the United Nations is concerned, I do not see any change in emphasis in the USA’s policies. If we are now to really get the United Nations more involved in Iraq, then we have to be very careful about it, for it must be the United Nations in reality, rather than the United Nations acting as something like an extension of the occupying powers in that country. In that event, they will be sucked into the same maelstrom of violence and retaliation as the Americans have been. The fact is that there is, in the region itself, nothing left of the loudly-trumpeted initiative for a new Middle East. I wish we could join with the Americans in getting right down to the root causes and devising an overall strategy for the Middle East, which cannot, to be sure, focus on Israel and Palestine alone. I also think there are still serious differences where anti-terrorism is concerned. Today, I listened to Commissioner Patten – as always, it was a pleasure to do so – and I agree with many of his arguments. He is wrong about the way I voted, but he is right about much else. We have to be very careful about this, and it may be that we have to go to the outermost limit of what is legally feasible in order to have a real defence against terrorism, but what is essential is that we combat its causes, and there are, as before, great differences in the ways in which Europe and the United States of America go about doing that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wanted to speak in this debate on compliance with Community law because, as a member of the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Petitions, I am familiar with non-compliance with that Community law, above all, as previous rapporteurs have said, in the social and environmental fields. It is true, as my Spanish colleague said, that there is a low level of transposition in the social field of only 71% of directives, but it is even truer that in the Commission, on environmental issues, there is not only poor transposition, but flagrant non-compliance, which is the worst thing: lack of application. This is something that we note every day in the Committee on Petitions, since it is the main form of non-compliance: 40% of non-compliances reported by citizens to the Committee on Petitions relate to the environment. As Mr Koukiadis rightly says in his report, the right to petition is the principle par excellence of the recognition of European citizenship and therefore we should be worried by this repeated non-compliance in the social and environmental fields, which are so closely related to the rights of that European citizenship. If we examine each of the petitions which reach the Committee on Petitions – naturally I am most familiar with the petitions which come from my country – we will note the enormous interest amongst European citizens in collecting information and perfectly understanding Community law in order to report non-compliances with great rigour. We therefore believe that in the annual report a section should be dedicated to petitions, as the rapporteur rightly says, because it is in that committee that a real contribution to compliance with Community law is made.

Political group: GUE-NGL