GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
When, on 11 September, the United States became the victim of terrorist attacks, the EU countries immediately declared their solidarity with the Americans. Without delay, the European Union, in order that this terrorism might be combated, made it possible to extradite people to the US. We did this because we share the same values and standards. After all, the United States, like us, is a democratic constitutional state whom it should be possible to trust. This same position on shared values leads us to support the International Criminal Court. We are excited about the establishment of this Court. We assumed that only rogue states that are not prepared to try their own citizens for crimes against humanity, genocide and other large-scale offences, would be frightened of this Court. We are therefore shocked by the United States’s reaction. We really did not expect this, because it is abundantly clear that the Criminal Court targets states and citizens of a different kind. This means, in fact, that the United States places itself above the standards which we thought we had in common with them. Today, we read in the US newspapers that we simply have to accept that America is like an 800 lb gorilla that refuses to be restricted in its freedom of movement. In our view, descriptions of this kind about oneself are extremely unhelpful. Such an attitude also threatens the alliance – and I fully endorse what Mr Haarder said on this subject – because the moral content of the alliance is in this way denied. This attitude is also evident in the common fight against serious distortions of international Rule of Law, which must be frustrated. The US President intends to cancel cooperation in joint action in Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, and suchlike. There is even talk of a veto of the UN mandate for actions of this kind. Faithful, historical allies, such as the Netherlands, perhaps the United States’ oldest ally, are implicitly threatened with violent action. This 'Hague invasion act' must be the maddest thing ever. It is actually better to joke about this in order to illustrate that this is an impetuous step and that the Americans, with their sense of humour, will have to retract measures which are actually wholly inappropriate for them. Parliament's resolution urges the American administration to retrace its steps and make use of the options open to the ICC participants in order to be able to try their own staff in their own way. For the European Union, this remarkable incident should serve as a warning. We should in any event develop political and defence capacity which enables us to take up our responsibility for international security without American participation. Moreover, I am happy to follow the line taken by Mr Haarder and Commissioner Byrne in respect of future policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, there has recently been much talk of the importance of enlarging the European Union. We have before us Malta and Cyprus, which are two States keen to become members. Given that the complexity of the procedures has been greatly reduced, I voted in favour not only because this measure addresses the need for cohesion between these applicant States and the Union, but also because I believe that this should be taken as an invitation from Parliament to the Council and the Commission to ensure that Cyprus and Malta become fully-fledged members of the European Union as swiftly as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, you give a very full response. I would have liked such a response to the written question which I sent to you. Your answer simply referred me to the Commission's opinion on the IGC. It is not acceptable for a Member of Parliament to take time to write a question and then to get a response from your services which is two lines long. I can read documents. I wanted your personal view on Mrs Zabell's question about legal issues. We have a tradition with the Treaty of Amsterdam of using protocols to protect specific characteristics. We could perhaps look at the potential of a protocol to protect the specific characteristic of sport in Europe. There are many areas now where we have legal challenges, as you rightly know, in the sport domain, particularly in the commercial sector. We could have a protocol that would allow us to give a political direction to authorities to take proper account of the specific nature and structure of sport in Europe. Would you be prepared to back such a protocol and do you see a way for us to try and protect the specific nature of sport without, as Mrs Zabell asked, having a particular legal competence?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with your permission I should like to move a technical oral amendment, which the Commissioner has just referred to, so that Amendment No 1 reads at the end, 'The action plan for mobility adopted by the Council on 14 December 2000 and also approved at the Nice European Council', and Amendment No 3 deletes 'agreed at the Nice Summit', because I have just referred to it in Amendment No 1. (Parliament accepted the oral amendments) (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Report (A5-0146/2001) by Mr Florenz, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment(COM(2000) 347 – C5-0415/2000 – 2000/0159(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0148/2001) by Mr Florenz, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (COM(2000) 347 – C5-0414/2000 – 2000/0158(COD)) Amendment No 44:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted for the proposal for a resolution and I have nothing against putting a label on genetically modified food products. However, I would like to ask you if it would not be more correct for the European Union, that is, Parliament, to decide that if these genetically modified products are harmful, their production and trade should be banned, or if they are not harmful, they should be allowed on the market. Putting them on the market with a label amounts to putting the phrase “harmful to health” on cigarette packets, which does not prevent anyone smoking as they do not attach any importance to what is written on the label.

Political group: PPE-DE
Promoting the rights of children is a topic dear to the hearts of all of us here today. It is at the same time a great privilege and a grave responsibility to work to create legislation and legal instruments for the protection of children. Ensuring the protection of children must go hand in hand with measures which promote and protect the family. A strong family unit is essential to ensuring the protection of children. The preamble to the Convention states that the child, in order to realise 'the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment'. Articles 5, 7, 9, 14, and others enshrine the responsibilities and rights of parents in relation to the raising of their children. It is absolutely crucial that parental rights are enshrined and ensured in order to protect the full rights of children.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am obliged to the Commissioner for his reply. As we know, we tend to see Africa as very largely characterised by single industries; on the other hand, though, Africans see Europe as very much made up of conglomerates. What I want to ask you is what the Commission is doing in order – and I do know that this is in practice very difficult – to build up cooperation between sub-Saharan Africa and the European Union as regards small and medium-sized enterprises. There is virtually nothing moving on that front. I would like to know what is being done in the area of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises. Although most small businesses still do not dare to venture into the region, I do believe that they would make very important partners for Africa, if it is not to be dominated by single industries and conglomerates to the exclusion of all else.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, far too late though it is, I of course welcome the Commission's statement of its intention to submit a Green Paper on services of general interest in the first quarter of 2003. It does, however, strike me as incomprehensible that the final conclusions and specific initiatives associated with it are to appear as long as six months later. Analyses and the demands for action resulting from them belong together. Having been called upon to do so by the Barcelona Council in March 2002, the Commission, in June of that year, adopted a new methodology for evaluating the quality of public services. You will be well aware that opinions on this are sharply divided, and I am telling you now that, in terms of its quality, this new evaluation methodology is an unmitigated disaster. In view of the invariable tendency of the debate on public services to bring forth ritual repetitions about deregulation and privatisation, it would at least be proper to conduct, in parallel with the Green Paper, a scientifically sound analysis of the situation in those markets and enterprises that have already been deregulated and privatised. There are marked distinctions to be drawn between the successes and failures in the various lines of business involved. The questions that demand answers are, firstly, whether equal rights of access are guaranteed to all citizens of the European Union, irrespective of where they live or of their levels of income. Secondly: has the cost of the service increased or fallen? Thirdly: has its quality improved or got worse? And fourthly: have the service's employees experienced an improvement or a deterioration in their social conditions? This also involves putting the service providers on an equal footing irrespective of their ownership structures. There is nothing fair about the competition if the regulations on aid put enterprises with a larger than 25 % public stake in them at a disadvantage over against their private-sector counterparts. So ‘yes’ to competition on the basis of the best services, and ‘no’ to competition on the basis of ownership!

Political group: GUE-NGL
The services sector is particularly important to big business in the ΕU, in that industrial activities are increasingly moving to other areas of the world. Mrs Kratsa's report moves along lines required by the imposition of the terms of big business on this sector and its content reveals the manner in which the neo-liberal policy of the EU deals with the problems. Interest focuses on increasing competitiveness, on harmonising the services sector with competition policy and on the cross-border provision of services, while entrepreneurship is deified as the solution to all the problems of unemployment and underemployment. The so-called 'open coordination method' for national policies is also promoted, which is nothing more than a mechanism for imposing EU policy without the apparent involvement of its institutions. In addition, the report praises the new forms of work, part-time and temporary employment, but talks hypocritically about enhancing their quality. It adopts the raising of the retirement age and calls for note to be taken of the 'beneficial' consequences of privatising services of general interest. Needless to say, the standard formulae about improving the positions of women and the disabled and using new technologies have not been left out. For these reasons, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wish to place on record my support and appreciation for the hard work and expertise Richard Corbett has put into reforming Parliament's rules. As a result of his efforts, Parliament should now function better and hold more interesting debates. It should now be able to cope with enlargement. This is a first and important step in making Parliament a more effective voice for the people in EU decision-making.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy effectively does not have much supervision over large parts of the budget. However, over those lines that we do have supervision we express our concerns and have done so in the past. I am pleased that as a result of our concerns about the LIFE programme the monies that are dispensed through the LIFE programme, both within the Union and externally, are going to be examined by the Court of Auditors. I understand the Court of Auditors is looking at this budget line for this year and on that basis we would be happy, despite our reservations, to grant discharge or to recommend the granting of discharge. Regarding the other lines, we do not have many concerns about the consumer lines where we see that the work is going on quite effectively, but I would draw the attention of the House and the Commission to the health programme and the health budget lines. Although that programme is currently under review and is due to be reorganised, we felt when we examined it last year that there were a great number of small projects without a great deal of clarity or order to them. Whilst we expressed some concerns about this, we are prepared to support the idea of discharge on the basis that the new head of the DG for Health will investigate these issues and bring forward a report to the House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the principles underlying the strategy for a future EU policy on chemical substances, namely to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment while ensuring the efficient functioning of the internal market and stimulating innovation and competitiveness in the chemical industry, receive my unqualified support. However, I am struggling with the White Paper and also with Mrs Schörling’s report, because I believe that the White Paper is not effective on a number of scores. Although Mrs Schörling has worked hard, she too is complicating matters. Let me therefore give a few examples of a system which, in my view, could function. I know that the Commissioner too has been informed by the Dutch government about where industry initially refused point blank to adopt the new system entitled SOMS. However, industry and the government are now very happy with this system. Allow me to give you a few examples and in doing so, expose a few weaknesses in the White Paper. First of all, the industry’s responsibility. Lip service is being paid to this, for the White Paper is limited to risk assessment data and to providing information to downstream users. Responsibility should really be placed with industry, and that means, therefore, that it must also be able to take risk-restricting measures off its own bat. The entire system proposed by you, including heavy-handed interference from the powers that be, has proven that it does not work. That is why a change is needed. Secondly, the reach system should be modified. In any case, a possibility for rapid screening must be introduced. Rapid screening can also be done on the basis of a harmfulness profile, for the tonnage is not a determining factor. My fellow MEPs and I have tried to include these provisions in amendments, and I hope that at least Amendments Nos 102 and 103 will be adopted accordingly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at the eleventh hour the rapporteur, Mr Thomas Mann, has made some further effort to move some way towards my group’s position. We very much appreciate this effort. Nevertheless, the result does not yet entirely meet our expectations. This is because there are a number of passages concerning SME policy and concerning tax reduction that we cannot wholeheartedly support. I would therefore like to call on my group to refrain from voting on this report. (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Report (A5-0051/2003) by José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the state of the European economy – preparatory report with a view to the Commission recommendation on broad economic policy guidelines ((2002/2287 (INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0047/2003) by Bruno Trentin, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the annual assessment of implementation of stability and convergence programmes (2002/2288(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0037/2003) by Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission report: Convergence Report 2002 – Sweden (COM(2002) 243 – C5-0326/2002 – 2002/2170(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0018/2003) by Manuel António dos Santos, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission communication on Public finances in EMU – 2002 (COM(2002) 209 – C5-0324/2002 – 2002/2168(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. – That concludes the vote. *** EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Lehne report (A5-0052/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Whitehead warmly on what turned out to be an excellent report. Food must be of a certain quality, but it should first of all be safe. Consumers must be able to rely on the inspections being adequate. These days, confidence has increasingly become a matter of national concern, and that is, in my view, a step backwards. The internal market is a great good, but it can only function on the basis of common standards and rules, and today sees the laying of the foundations for this. Traceability, liability, responsibility, precaution; they are all essential principles. Producers must be responsible for the highest quality at every stage of the food chain. But responsibility should also be clearly defined. The rapid alert system must remain a political instrument. We must guarantee that food imported from third countries is just as safe as food produced over here, but food safety must not be a cover for protectionism. That requires sound and fair inspections, but also a common and global approach. Emotions can run high where food is concerned. Politicians cannot and may not ignore those emotions, but do need to weigh the facts. The European Food Authority must be a beacon of objectivity, and it must join forces with national authorities, that is obvious. But we should not render the European Authority powerless right from the outset. We do not want a stalemate between the national and European authorities. In the event of a difference of opinion with one or more national authorities, the European Authority must still produce unambiguous recommendations on scientific grounds. The general principles of foodstuffs legislation constitute the building blocks for quality, and that is what we will be further developing in the years to come. Animal welfare should also be brought into the equation, and the quality of our production methods must improve. We should have the courage to bring about true reform of our agricultural policy. Quality and food safety must occupy centre stage in that connection.

Political group: PSE
The Commission is good at carrying out analyses but often lacks the clout to actually implement policy conclusions. The internal organisation is still too hierarchical, bureaucratic and centralised, and the Member States give the Commission too few resources and too little policy leeway for it to be able to take decisive action. These structural shortcomings therefore stand in the way of solving the problem of the grey zone. The transition from relief to reconstruction and development requires flexibility in the decision-making process. Sluggishness and too much interference can affect the intended results even more adversely than the technical risks, which can be accompanied by speedy procedures. Needless to say, what we need first of all is the best possible prevention policy with regard to natural disasters and violent conflicts. Everything possible must be done before a crisis breaks out. The state of readiness must be at its best, plans must be ready, cooperatives must be arranged and the implementation partners must be identified as far as possible. Detailed and flexible disaster plans must form part of the Country Strategy Papers. ECHO must focus on relief, but it seems very desirable that it also employ staff with expertise in the field of reconstruction in order to make the transition smoother. The monitoring procedure regarding implementation must shift from ex ante to ex post. Internal coordination can only be effective if a multidisciplinary team is deployed at an early stage. When can we expect specific Commission proposals for simplified policy procedures? The report by Mr Van den Berg makes excellent suggestions. The entire donor community is responsible for improvement. The grey zone problem is an additional reason for speeding up the Commission’s internal reorganisation. It is high time splendid analyses were translated into still more splendid policy action.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I was pleased to hear that two days ago the Belgian authorities brought fraud charges against former Commissioner, Mrs Cresson, four years after her misdemeanours brought down the Santer Commission. This, too, shows the urgent need to create a European Public Prosecutor to bring to court solely and exclusively cases of fraud involving European money, and to do so soon after the offence was committed, because a preventive effect can only be expected if prosecution and conviction follow quickly. Although in principle I would be the last person to advocate a further transfer of powers to the EU, in this exceptional case it is justified because all – and I stress all – the bodies that have been responsible for the protection of European money up until now have failed lamentably, most of all the present Commission, which is being reduced by this task to throwing around verbal abuse. The need for action is greater than ever, however, because the amount of fraud, mismanagement and nepotism is growing. I need only mention the most recent goings on in the European Statistical Office, EUROSTAT. For the most part, national public prosecutors cannot cope. But hanging the small fry and letting the big fish get away is having a devastating effect on European citizens’ confidence in the European institutions. I therefore appeal to the Council and the Convention: we do not need any more green papers. What we need is a clear legal basis that clearly defines the task to be performed. Then there will be no more room for objections from individual Member States. This first step must be taken now with the revision of the treaties and eastwards enlargement. If we succeed, this institution will be linked inseparably to Mrs Theato’s efforts, and I expressly thank her here once again for her persistent efforts. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am delighted that the House has adopted Mr Schröder’s excellent report by a majority of more than 90% and that, for the second year in succession, we have made an issue of the Beneš decrees, which infringe international law and human rights, as well as highlighting their inconsistency with Community law and practice and with the Copenhagen criteria. The House has done this in a way which allows the Czech Republic to distance itself by its own efforts from these decrees that are incompatible with human rights. I call on Prague to respond to this signal, this challenge, this plea for dialogue, to grant our request and to ensure, together with our House, that this legacy of a nationalist era can be consigned to the past. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE