GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Thank you Mr President. I should make it clear to the House that we will go on asking questions until the underlying problem and suffering cease to be an issue. We shall certainly continue to press for answers until we receive something better than mere bureaucratic responses. I would go so far as to say that the latter are unworthy of the person providing them. The five prisoners in question received extraordinarily heavy sentences following trials deemed by US witnesses and legal experts to lack all legal validity. These trials were condemned as show trials. Further, human rights are being violated twice over. Not only are the prisoners being denied their rights, their families are too. The latter are being denied the fundamental right to visit their relatives. I would like to ask whether the Council is concerned about the human rights of these particular Cubans or whether it is only concerned about the human rights of those other Cubans who have been so much in the limelight over the last few months. Can a selective approach to human rights in Cuba really be justified? Should the approach really vary, depending on the identity of the violator of human rights and the identity of the victim of violation? Is the President-in-Office of the Council aware that the credibility and the authority of the European Union depend on it acting consistently? In this case, the Union’s approach has been entirely inconsistent. Nonetheless, all this could appear to be of minor importance in the broader context of the whole outrageous situation in Guantanamo Bay.

Political group: PSE
The EU and its forerunners have been born from the desire on the part of major international businesses for one unfettered market with a common currency. As a result, employers’ interests have weighed down heavily on the EU’s management structures and EU policy. For 50 years, there have been calls for more attention to solidarity with those who will never occupy economic positions of power. The trade movement asked for a ‘Social Europe’, and the Council, the Commission and Parliament created the impression that this social Europe was on its way. Three years ago, this ambition was officially abandoned. The 2000 social summit in Lisbon was not about pensions, social benefits, reducing working hours, public investments, strengthening public services and economic stability, but about large-scale privatisations and increasing company profits. This mind-set was expected to result in winning the competitive battle with America and Japan. Unlimited economic growth without redistribution was said to automatically solve all social problems. Social policy is now at risk of being made completely subordinate to economic policy. This policy completely ignores the fact that the crisis in 1929 could only be halted by active government intervention, as advocated by the economist Keynes. Given a declining economy and growing unemployment, the neo-liberal approach is a recipe for certain social disaster. My colleague, Mr Herman Schmid, is right to denounce any future adherence to this approach in employment policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the texts before us, the Commission and Parliament have put a figure of EUR 4 billion on the war damage caused by the NATO bombings in Serbia alone, excluding Kosovo, thereby indirectly admitting that they were to blame for some of the material war crimes. NATO professes to have intervened in order to prevent further suffering, and yet there were far more exiles, dead and wounded as a result of this war than there had been in the 12 allegedly decisive months before NATO intervened militarily. Surely the region was not effectively destabilised until NATO waged war on it? In the end, the intervention by NATO in the Balkans served to legitimise the NATO strategy and its so-called self-imposed mandate. In recognition of the war damage caused and the fact that the situation was escalated by NATO, payments should be equal to not half but all the quantified war damage. More importantly, instead of lending money, the EU – and in particular the Member States which belong to NATO – should pay reparation for the damage which they caused.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We voted against Amendment No 1, designed to limit the applicability of the Framework Decision so that, where the drugs trade is concerned, it applies only to serious and/or international crime. We support the Council decision as a whole and believe that this addition would limit the scope of the Framework Decision and, therefore, clearly entail a deterioration in the Council’s document. We also wish to emphasise that the EU should deploy every possible means to combat the use and sale of drugs. We interpret the Council decision as saying that drug trafficking is prohibited, and we therefore believe that ‘coffee shops’ should not exist within the EU.

Political group: PSE
I wish to express my support for establishing a new task, entrusted to a European Union agency, with a view to studying and more particularly to anticipating industrial change. This would send out a powerful political message, demonstrating the will to react to these changes, which are caused by various upheavals, resulting particularly from economic and financial changes, the development of new technologies, international competition and the globalisation of trade. It was at the Luxembourg Summit in November 1997 that we realised the importance of looking more closely into these phenomena so as to avoid suffering them again and to counter their negative consequences. This idea led to a meeting of a group of experts, better known as the Gyllenhammar group, which was given the task of studying the economic and social implications of industrial change. The conclusions reached by this group persuaded the Cardiff European Council in December 1998 to accept the creation of a monitoring centre for industrial change. We are finally debating this proposal today, and I hope it will be put into practice in the very near future! Over the last few years we have seen a huge increase in the number of relocations, restructurings and mergers, which has greatly changed the face of European industry and which has had serious repercussions for employment and for economic and social cohesion. Member States that are ill-prepared for these changes have experienced them too many times and have tried to pick up the pieces, as best they can, under the sometimes disapproving eye of the European Commission, which has not hesitated to condemn more than one Member State for some misdemeanour involving state aid! The first victims of these unforeseen changes are, of course, the employees, who, in spite of increased growth and an improvement in the overall economic situation, still live in a climate of insecurity. Indeed we have recently seen companies making redundancies even when they are making profit, because they have to restructure and merge, with no thought, of course, of fulfilling their obligations to inform their employees and to communicate with them! I take this opportunity to appeal to the Council, which is blocking the proposal for a directive on informing and consulting workers! To sum up, this monitoring centre must be used as an instrument for anticipating industrial change. We will then be able to adopt the measures necessary to prepare employees better, particularly by offering them training with the aim of adapting them to the business sectors of the future! I support the proposal contained in the resolution which seeks to include the right to lifelong training in the Charter of Fundamental Rights! The centre’s studies will, of course, be widely distributed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have a simple proposal to make to colleagues which is non-technological. We should use our time to complete the vote for Quaestors. We have spent far too long voting this week. Mr Onesta gave us a very useful piece of paper yesterday. I do not know whether it is symbolic, but it is blank! This is a non-technological item, so the s should not be frightened of it. Having voted, Members should put a piece of paper – or Mr Onesta's block – over their screen. It is quite simple. (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
The war against terrorism is, and will remain, a high priority within the EU, but must not be fought at the cost of the rule of law. We are concerned that EU governments are currently rushing to coordinate the legislation of the Member States in the war against terrorism and to amalgamate various legal traditions in a very short space of time. There is a risk of undermining the rule of law, particularly with the Commission’s proposed definition of the term ‘terrorism’. In our opinion, this definition is far too broad and allows room for too many interpretations. It is quite possible that people who, for political reasons, protest against prevailing social structures and use illegal means to do so, will fall within the parameters of the definition now being proposed. It is clearly inappropriate to go so far as to view those who protest against what they consider to be an unjust social order as terrorists. There is a need for terrorism to be defined more clearly than has so far been the case. In this respect, we therefore welcome the European Parliament’s more specific amendments. The European Parliament and the national parliaments must also be allowed to exercise real influence before final decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers.

Political group: ELDR
I consider the establishment of a European satellite navigation programme to be generally sensible and deserving of support. I have, despite this, voted against the Glante report today, as I am unable to follow the rapporteur down the road he is taking. In no way is there any certainty that Galileo will succeed in economic terms as a competitor to GPS, which has until now enjoyed a monopoly of the market. I therefore take the view that the financial risk should be borne equally by the public sector and private enterprise. The rapporteur wants to facilitate industry's involvement in financing Galileo by means of a development company instead of giving it a share in the Joint Undertaking, as the Commission had planned. One objective in this is to allay the Member States' misgivings on the security policy front, and the other is to avoid the private businesses which constitute part of the Joint Undertaking enjoying competitive advantages when tenders are invited to set Galileo up and operate it. I take the view, however, that the end result of this purely optional solution to financial participation will be that the investments Galileo will need will be raised by the public sector alone. Industry will get on board only when Galileo has demonstrated its earning potential and is set to make profits. This would boil down to funds raised by taxation being invested as venture capital and to substantial shares in the profits then being handed over to private enterprise. That is not how I envisage taxpayers' money being handled. Nor am I convinced by the argument of possible conflicts of interest in tendering procedures. It is, for example, the usual practice in municipalities for enterprises owned by the local authority to tender jointly with private firms when contracts are put out, without this resulting in unequal treatment. As regards the argument of security policy, I have misgivings of a quite different kind. Both the Commission and the Council leave no room for doubt that they regard Galileo as a central component of the independence of European defence policy. Parliament has not been able to make up its mind to decisively reject the use of Galileo for military purposes. I, though, reject all use of satellite navigation systems for military purposes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I believe that we all feel a certain satisfaction when we are part of an historic moment, whatever the context, and this is definitely an historic moment for, irrespective of different positions and disagreement, which we have heard expressed again today, I fully agree with what Mr Méndez de Vigo said. For the first time in history, we have succeeded in reconciling sovereignty with the protection of rights, leaving behind the concept of demos we have known and launching Europe towards future horizons whose limits will be for us alone to decide. Of course, there may well be a few minor flaws but, seeing as the preamble contained an extensive discourse with reference, not least, to Thucydides, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the principle of the ancient Greek philosophers: history is never completely flawless because, if it were, it would not be perpetuated. I will not comment on the text of the Treaty but limit myself to one warning and one regret. One point on which we as Parliament must take care is the requirement of unanimity in decision-making. We have achieved a text which, without a doubt, launches the Community method and spirit towards new horizons and, given that the Constitutional Treaty with its many facets is a key card for us to play if we are to achieve greater European competitiveness, the requirement of unanimous decision-making in a 15-Member State Europe – as we have seen – has already, at many sensitive times and in many sensitive cases, created difficult, not to say impossible situations. Well then, opting to preserve unanimity in a 25-Member State Union may have very serious consequences, especially if the decisions hinge on economic or tax proposals. I fear that if we were to take the option of establishing a right of veto, which is still on the cards, we would ultimately be shooting ourselves in the foot, for this would ultimately reduce the European area – which is, in fact, the largest or one of the largest common markets in the world – to a mere collection of national interests. We must take care to avoid this. The regret is that I listened, with some surprise, to the debate held on the preamble to decide whether our religious, or rather Christian, heritage should be included among the factors making up our common identity. I would point out that the identity of Europe has been wrought from an experience of painful emancipation that has not, in our history, been free of tragic events, although they have, in any case, always led to liberation and growth. I feel that, from a spiritual point of view, this is one of the elements which contribute to the greatness of Christianity and make it a universal point of reference. I would like there to be further debate on this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking Mrs Hautala for the huge amount of work she has done on this report, and also the Commission for having made an active contribution to its success. It is therefore not only out of politeness that I say this but in genuine recognition of the fact that there is someone who has in actual fact been able to make a difference in this area and has demonstrated in practice that an individual MEP too can set a good agenda. I think that, with this report and the work that has been done, we have passed a milestone in the EU’s journey to equality. We have, first of all, arrived at a definition of what sexual harassment really is, and that is very useful. There are a number of countries which really had not adopted a position on this issue before. We have also obtained a ban on discrimination against women who are pregnant or who have recently given birth and, in certain cases, also against men on paternity leave, if there is national legislation on this subject. Finally, we have obtained the option of making positive special arrangements in cases where these are required by one or other gender. All in all, I think the result is splendid. We now come to the series of commitments assumed by the Member States in connection with this directive, and I want specifically to highlight the equality monitoring bodies, as they are called. At a recent meeting with the candidate countries, the latter were very much occupied by precisely that issue because they have a lack of data and because it is necessary for them to have means of putting pressure on their own governments with a view to acquiring this data. I also believe, however, that we have to say that we shall be keeping an eye on this issue in our own countries, because it is something that the Member States can easily avoid tackling. I have unfortunately experienced a little of this in my own country, but I will not labour that subject any more. I nonetheless believe that it is up to all of us to keep an eye on this matter so that we are both of help to the candidate countries and assume responsibility ourselves in our own countries.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I was very happy that Parliament gave such resounding support to the Ebner report. My own ancestral languages in Scotland – Gaelic and Lowland Scots – have suffered severe discrimination and neglect over a couple of centuries. Indeed, as we know, many of the Gaelic speakers were driven out during the horrible period of the Highland Clearances. In these circumstances it is a matter for rejoicing that the annual National Gaelic Mod (Am Mòd Nàiseanta Rìoghail) will take place for the one hundredth time in the town of Oban this year. I am very glad to have a constituency office there. It is a great tragedy that the languages of Duncan Ban MacIntyre and Robert Burns have become more or less foreign languages to the children of Argyllshire and Ayrshire respectively, and other parts of Scotland. These are examples from one country of a universal European problem. I am very glad that at the Convention I had the chance to help put respect for linguistic diversity into the objectives of the Union, if we adopt the draft Constitution. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is helpful too. But we need proactive help and that is what the Ebner report promises. I hope that the Commission will take that up. I am very pleased with the result of that vote and to have taken part in it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ARGO programme is supposed to ensure that the EU's external borders continue to be secure against intruders. The model for this fortification of the EU's borders is Germany's system of bulkheads on its border with Poland. This strategy comprises well-trained police officers, high-tech apparatus, the efficient cooperation of the various authorities, and, to an increasing extent, the involvement of private security companies and informers among the population. I know you will think that crazy, but I will tell you what I think of it in a moment. The ARGO programme is meant to ensure the establishment of the same level of fortification on the EU's new eastern border prior to removal of controls on the newly-created internal borders in accordance with the Schengen Agreement. It is no secret that apologists for a European policy of repression see this as the nucleus of a European border police force. The action programme aims at the creation of effective bulwarks against the migration into the EU of unwanted refugees, who can scarcely find a way in without the help of smugglers. Greater sealing-off will – as is intended – lead to higher prices being charged in the market for this sort of assistance and make it more hazardous. All the stances taken up in favour of refugees but against people-traffickers are, at best hypocritical and at worst help to close off borders with fatal results. The planned amendments to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement are also in line with the ARGO programme's objectives. The re-armament of the police on the external borders is accompanied by ever more competences for the police in the interior. Where, as in this case, it is cooperation by the repressive authorities that is at issue, it is interesting that the role played by borders is relegated to the background. In principle, the planned amendment of the Schengen Agreement envisages nothing other than to hand over more powers to foreign police officers in cases involving cross-border surveillance. In future, it will not only be suspects that will be under observation, but also their friends. The initiative is therefore pursuing the European government's objective of making a priority of the implementation of repressive security measures rather than the guaranteeing and securing of human rights and freedoms. Mr von Boetticher and the Commission thus furnish a further example of the folly of believing that security can be created by more repressive police action. Both initiatives thus contribute to a development that directly leads from a neoliberal state characterised by competition to a police state bearing the stamp of authoritarianism and an obsession with security. They represent a further step on that road – the road that leads towards a European panopticon.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily. I would, however like to say that I am the deputy chairman of this committee and I was treated in exactly the same manner. It is a sorry state of affairs when a deputy chairman is not even given proper notice of an extraordinary meeting. This sort of treatment is quite simply unacceptable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on behalf of the Basque Nationalist Party – which is the majority party in the Basque Autonomous Region – I wish to express our total condemnation and rejection of the death of Jesús María Pedrosa Urquiza, Municipal Councillor in Durango in Vizcaya, and our condemnation of any act of violence which takes place in the Basque Country or any other part of the world. We have constantly rejected the use of violence in order to achieve political objectives. I must also say that I regret having to take the floor in these circumstances, following this very recent act of violence. Madam President, I am grateful for the fact that – as I said to you in my letter last week – in circumstances such as these, you are diligent enough to defend democratic principles, rejecting acts of terrorism on behalf of Parliament and expressing your support for the Spanish Government in the fight against this terrorism. I reminded you that the Basque Government has spent 20 years working for peace in the Basque Country by democratic means and striving for a better future for all of us. I believe that it is also fair to recognise the contribution, the action and activity of the Basque Government. However, I must also point out that, over and above the terrorist acts and the violence which is and has been carried out in the Basque Country by ETA and also by the apparatus of the State – which we should not forget – there is a political conflict there which existed long before ETA. There is a section of the Basque population which does not feel comfortable, which does not feel at ease with the current legal-political set-up in the Basque Country. I believe that it is a good thing for all political parties with an open and democratic approach to sit down together to hold a dialogue so that we may, once and for all, find a way for all citizens in the Basque Country to feel at ease and to be able to live in peace, which is what we all wish to see.

Political group: Verts-ALE