GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, firstly, I would like to speak as chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to point out, following on from what Mr Haarder said, that Mr Rothley, first Vice-Chairman of the Committee, is not a spokesman but a rapporteur, and I think that so far he has conducted himself impeccably within that mandate. Secondly, I would like to speak in support of Mrs Morgantini’s motion. I think we are at a stage in the process in the Middle East in which dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli female Members of Parliament and European female Members of Parliament could contribute to resolving this conflict. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. I believe she has touched on a few important points, which I intend to raise again myself very shortly. First and foremost, we are discussing Parliament’s assent to the aforementioned WIPO treaties. Nothing is in force yet and so this time Parliament’s decision will carry some weight. In signing up, the EU is acting in accordance with its intention to arrogate all internal and international powers, but it is unclear as to where the powers withdrawn from national control, are to end up. Therefore assent will only be the order of the day here if the EP is involved in the development of WIPO law every step of the way, from start to finish, and has the right of codecision. This is not provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam. What does the Commission have to say to that? Crucial aspects have remained unclear in the draft treaties, and the rapporteur says the same. To quote one example: the concept “author” is not defined in any way in the Treaty, which would make the situation ripe for litigation amongst parties to the Treaty. I would like to ask the Commission at this point if it intends to go into this with its eyes shut? Does it intend to impose its own definitions of copyright on other parties to the Treaty? In addition, the WIPO approach is based on the concept of individual rights. This will lead to problems for indigenous people such as the Sami, for they have a different notion of rights: that of collective rights. However, there are also public interests at stake. For example, it is unclear as to whether public libraries will even be allowed to loan books, videos and cassettes at no charge in the future. This would directly affect the individual’s right to equality of opportunity with regard to access to education. Why does the Commission say nothing about this? Does it in fact want to privatise education? Economic interests are there in the large print of the treaties; public interests, on the other hand, are there in very small print indeed. We have been conjuring up images of the penniless poet, but what we are talking about here is the total marketing of the soundtrack of Titanic. Furthermore, the relationship between WIPO and TRIPS has not been clarified, particularly as parts of the two treaties overlap. One could now say: “fine, TRIPS, the difference is trade-related intellectual property, but WIPO is mainly about relevance to trade. Therefore, how do we distinguish between these two treaties and ought there to be cooperation? If so, what form should this take? Should we set a precedent with WIPO so as to give the EU complete control over TRIPS too? All in all, there is still a huge amount of room for improvement and clarification as far as the draft is concerned. I expect the Commission to provide some information on the questions that have been raised so that I can at least give an explanation of vote for my group.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I simply wish to say that at 7.30 p.m. an extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs will begin, for an urgent consultation that the Council has requested. I have asked for the floor in relation to the two subsequent reports and I believe that the same is true for several members of that committee who are here at the moment. I have taken the floor so that our reason for leaving the Chamber may be recorded in the Minutes and to say that, as coordinator of the Group of the on the committee, I have no choice but to leave, and I hope this demonstrates that we should avoid this type of situation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, following on from Mrs Van Lancker, I would like to say a few words regarding the modernisation of the organisation of labour, i.e. job improvement. The outcome of the national plans of action in terms of modernisation is very disappointing indeed. It partly deals with partnership and consultation of employees and partly with new types of work and working times. The then Green Paper on the modernisation of the organisation of labour was an incentive to overcome the kind of labour organisation that is based on strong arm tactics. It hardly had any impact at all. The reports show that in some countries the low level of participation of people older than 55, women – think of the gender divide – seems to go hand in hand with relatively low unemployment. The people’s opinions on their work in terms of stress and all sorts of other phenomena are extremely negative. It is against this background, in particular, that the drafting of guideline 16, the modernisation of labour organisation, has been rather disappointing and it is likely that too much is being left for the European social partners i.e. employers to deal with. If the next round of national plans of action still does not yield any progress then we feel that stronger measures should be taken. I would like to appeal to the Commission to pay more attention to the quality of the work rather than just the quantity of employment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Following the attacks of 11 September, policy against terrorism had to be tightened in Europe too. The Commission proposal on the definition and penalty standards for acts of terrorism therefore deserves our support. However, the Commission proposal on a European arrest warrant with a general scope, and which abolishes the dual criminality requirement across the board is met with less enthusiasm. This is a bridge too far for a variety of reasons: it pushes countries with a milder climate in terms of criminal law into the defensive and calls into question the fairness of the course of justice. The proposed general scope is no longer related to combating terrorism. As such, it constitutes no ground for the enormous political pressure and the break-neck speed of the decision-making process. Such a proposal revolutionises the application of national and European criminal law and therefore deserves a well considered and transparent decision-making process, preceded by a proper public debate. Moreover, Parliament is forced to pronounce judgment on the Commission proposal while the Council has, in fact, already turned it on its head: a positive list instead of a negative one, and behind closed doors. One can hope and expect that the discussion in the Council will eventually culminate in an acceptable compromise, but we do not know this yet and neither are we voting on this tomorrow. This is why this plenary debate and the vote in this form and at this time are a little absurd and premature, in fact. For that reason, the delegations of the Dutch Labour Party will abstain from tomorrow’s vote on the Commission proposal for a European arrest warrant.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I voted for this resolution on the forthcoming Gothenburg Council because it contains an important point on the undertaking to secure pensions in Europe – as the report says – which are sustainable and enable those who have worked to live a dignified life. I feel that Europe must be close to its citizens, not just in terms of the economy but also when they have finished working and have a right to a pension which allows them to live comfortably even when they are too old to continue working. I therefore hope that we will genuinely take this path.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, under Kabila Sr., the peace process had ground to a halt. There is new hope in the air now that his son has become president. Peace is only possible if all foreign troops are withdrawn. That is why Europe and America particularly must exert joint pressure on Rwanda and Burundi to end their adventure. The dividing up of the country is not an acceptable option. Even the so-called rebels will have to recognise territorial integrity. But they will only do so if Kabila and his friends are prepared to share power in the country. Without the democratisation of political life no lasting stability is possible in Congo. The poor population has to make do with emergency humanitarian aid. As soon as peace makes it possible, the European Union should resume structural aid and this must particularly enable the government to function properly. The poor Congo could be rich. It has large mineral resources and the population is predominantly very young and very dynamic. They deserve the efforts of all involved to breathe new life into the hope for peace.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner Vitorino, ladies and gentlemen, the report we are now discussing, on immigration, integration and employment, clearly delineates a multifaceted and topical set of problems that is not being addressed in the European Union or in any of the Member States. The Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere European Council laid the foundations for immigration policy in the Union. Today, more than ever, greater priority must be attached to this issue, mainly due to the significant increase in the flow of immigrants to Europe in recent years, to the need to maintain Europe’s level of economic development given the growing demographic deficit, to the shrinking labour force and to enlargement and the changes to the dynamics of migration that this will bring. By way of illustration, Italy will need an annual influx of more than 6500 immigrants per million inhabitants, according to the United Nations. My country, Portugal, currently receives 400 000 immigrants, which represents 8% of the working population and in the next 50 years could see a 17% fall in its total population. Immigrants, therefore, represent a resource for the labour market. This is not their only purpose, however. Their rights cannot be separated from fundamental human rights. Each Member State must consequently, in coordination with the Union, set limits for migratory flows that match the needs of their labour markets and also provide a supportive, humane and integrated response to receiving those who seek us out in order to improve their living conditions. The Member States, therefore, face a common challenge; that of improving the management of migratory flows by improving integration policies towards new and established migrants, in an ongoing partnership with the countries of origin. Lastly, as regards the rights associated with citizenship, which must always be considered in this matter, we take the view that it would be premature and possibly going too far to grant immigrants the right to vote in European elections. Even in local elections, each Member State must retain the prerogative as to whether or not it gives its immigrants the right to vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on Côte d'Ivoire, we tabled an amendment today. It is deplorable that this Parliament did not support that amendment. It is completely unacceptable that, in relation to fisheries agreements, EU fishing vessels take priority over the rights of people in other countries. This is a war-torn country. We believe that the agreement should be suspended until the conflict is solved. It is completely unacceptable to let EU vessels continue fishing undisturbed regardless of the fact that there is a conflict there.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Laschet has produced an excellent report on a very technical subject, going into great detail and discovering certain features connected with the subject which have been discussed during this debate. For this reason, I would like to congratulate him on his splendid work. Parliament is considering a proposal for a Council Regulation on a basis for financing the UN operation in Kosovo, UNMIK, and the costs of the High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina. The intention is to transfer these appropriations from the common foreign and security policy in the second pillar to the first pillar, to be financed from the Commission’s budget. Although this would appear to be a purely technical measure, there are certain problems associated with it. The first concerns Category 4. Category 4 is already overloaded. For this reason, the Commission proposed yesterday that the financial perspective be revised and that there should be substantial use of agricultural appropriations for external action. This transfer will bring with it a considerable need for additional financing in Category 4. Another problem concerns competence. If the proposal for a regulation were to be adopted without amendment, it would mean that there would be a syphon for transferring second pillar funds to the first pillar in Category 4, without consulting Parliament. For this reason, the regulation must be amended so that Parliament may maintain its power of influence. This syphon has to be blocked, so the annex to the proposal should be deleted and the amendments the Committee on Budgets is proposing should be adopted. The proposal should therefore be restricted at this stage of the proceedings to just two situations: financing the UN operation in Kosovo and the costs of the High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Thirdly, if the funding of special envoys is transferred in future to the Council’s administration budget, as is supposed, it will mean that the gentlemen’s agreement between the Council and Parliament will have to be reviewed. Under this agreement, the Council and Parliament do not interfere with the content of each other’s budget. If, however, what are clearly operational appropriations, such as those for financing the work of special envoys, are transferred to the Council’s budget, they will no longer be serving to fund the Council’s administrative expenses, but rather providing common financing of the work of the European Union. For this reason, these funds can no longer fall within the scope of the gentlemen’s agreement: the European Parliament must have the right to express its opinion and to influence the use of appropriations for financing the work of special envoys, even though they may have been included in the Council’s administrative budget. The proposal for a Regulation may, as far as I can see, be adopted only if the Commission, and the Council too, accept Parliament’s amendments, since, otherwise, the proposal will go against the present interinstitutional agreement.

Political group: ELDR
I voted in favour of the report because I feel it addresses an important issue in a balanced way, by highlighting the importance of promoting literary and linguistic creation, of preserving and improving Europe’s cultural and linguistic diversity, of safeguarding universal access to the written and spoken word and the deepening of knowledge and a sense of citizenship, by presenting specific measures for that purpose. I think it is equally important that we step up the fight against functional illiteracy and that we encourage awareness campaigns among the general public promoting the importance of books and electronic publishing, given that there is a need for technological progress that will improve authenticity protection and the rights of right holders, specifically the right of authors to be informed and credited when their works are used.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am pleased to see that both the countries of the European Union and Parliament have achieved a common position on the subject of Korea with less difficulty than they had with regard to Iraq. I believe that this is proof that the threat of North Korea to world security is seen as greater and more real, as, moreover, both Commissioner Patten and the High Representative, Mr Solana, have said this afternoon. Clearly, there can be no possibility of military action to destroy nuclear plant in Korea. In his account of the facts with which we who are concerned with these issues are already quite familiar, the Commissioner mentioned a possible US attack. I feel that this is to be completely excluded, for it could lead to war, possibly even nuclear war, on the Korean peninsula. Therefore, unlike in the case of Iraq, here, a peaceful approach is the only possible way forward, and that could take two forms: the isolation of North Korea or diplomacy and an attempt at dialogue. The United States, which favoured isolation at the start of the crisis, now appears to lean more towards dialogue. I believe that this is the opinion even of those Members who were here just now but have just left the House holding up placards saying ‘No to war’, not realising that, in doing so, they are making war more likely. Every initiative which supports Saddam Hussein’s cause makes him more stubborn and less inclined to bow before our requests and pressure. Now, there are two mistakes we must avoid in negotiations with North Korea. Firstly, we must not fall into the trap laid by Pyongyang, which is trying to create a division between the United States and South Korea, an attempt which is furthered by the fact that north-south relations have not been very good for some time, to the extent that the outgoing President was moved to describe Kim Jong-Il as a very astute man whereas, judging from what he has done with his country and the way his people, the population live, one might be induced to think the opposite. Secondly, we must not give other countries, other potential Kim Jong-Il-style dictators – and they do exist – the impression that one only has to violate the non-proliferation treaties in order to be rewarded with support and assistance from the United States. There must, however, be two indispensable conditions in our negotiations with North Korea. Firstly, we cannot tolerate the existence of a nuclear weapons programme in that country. Secondly, any agreement must lay down exceedingly rigid, pervasive control measures to prevent North Korea from taking us for a ride once again. On this basis, the conference we propose in our joint motion for a resolution would be extremely useful as a European Union initiative. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Parliament is free to discuss anything, but a real parliament has the right of initiative and the last word in the forming of coalitions, in legislation and the budget. In the EU, a distinction is drawn between compulsory and non-compulsory expenses, and the extensive agricultural budget falls outside the parliamentary remit. Furthermore, by means of structural funds, money that originates from rich Member States is pumped back to the self-same rich States via the bureaucracy in Brussels. The Council always reduces the level of the budget artificially. Money for military ventures outside the EU territory and reparations for these wars in Serbia, Kosovo and Afghanistan is taken from previously committed funds. Members of various EP groups are right to criticise this intransparent course of affairs in which the electorate has no say. However, it is their colleagues in the Council and the Commission who are responsible for this crazy situation and who insist that everything stays exactly the same. The Committee on Budgets is now looking for resources to absorb the effects of the expected doubling of the number of official languages at the lowest possible cost, among other means, by using remote interpreters who are also required to translate into languages other than their mother tongues. Bad-quality translations and overburdened staff cannot solve this problem. - Report Stenmarck (A5-0064/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, after I too have congratulated the rapporteur, Mr Graça Moura, who has done such a good job that it won the unanimous support of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, I would like to focus my attention on just one point, namely that in addition to the human, cultural and political advantages, the need to learn more than one language is also of considerable economic benefit. The report also highlights the findings of all the experts: having a good command of one’s mother tongue and learning classical languages, especially Latin and classical Greek, makes it easier to learn other languages. I would also add our own mother tongue to the equation. This great truth emerges from a fact rather unknown to most, that in the English language, for example, there are at least 75 000 words of Greek origin. I repeat, 75 000 English words derive from classical Greek. There are a similar number of words in the French language that derive from Greek, and the same is true of most other modern European languages. It is also certain that Latin is just as important for most European languages. The English sage, Francis Bacon, said that knowledge is power, so knowledge of the basic languages from which our modern European languages derive improves our general knowledge and reinforces European civilisation, which, besides its humanitarian value, is also a weapon for our survival and prosperity as Europeans in a globalised economy. Besides, the contemporary German professors, August and Werner-Karl Heisenberg, have characterised both classical and modern Greek as the mother and nurturer of human civilisation. I believe that revival of the teaching of Latin and classical Greek in middle education will also provide a cultural shield for the younger generations against the onslaught of the generally levelling effect of the American cultural message, so that only its positive elements are preserved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Besides the fact that I voted for the communication on the Gothenburg European Council meeting, I would like to state the following as my explanation of vote: For the first time, environmental issues are the main issue before the European Council this week in Gothenburg. The strategy of sustainable development will create a real content for the Union’s policy, particularly by uniting the economy, employment and the environment. This is an important step in the development of the EU in becoming a responsible player also in international cooperation, a good example of which is the visible defence of the Kyoto Agreement. It must be ensured that the strategy for sustainable development will not be overshadowed by other issues at the summit. In Gothenburg, the leaders of the EU must do their utmost to change the negative decision on Kyoto made by the US. As the US National Academy of Sciences agrees on the necessity of the agreement, the Bush administration should not have a problem returning to the ranks of responsible states. Serious consideration must be given to the Irish decision to vote against ratification of the Treaty of Nice. We must reassess the way the Union works and increase openness. When, according to researchers in the field, not even the Heads of State who took part in the negotiations are fully aware of the consequences of the Treaty of Nice, we might ask ourselves whether it is possible to reach a sensible decision on this issue at all. Every support must now be given to an open preparation model as the forthcoming reform of the Union gets underway. Citizens must be able to follow what is happening in the Union and the institutional reform cannot be made an exception to this principle.

Political group: PSE