GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, exactly which Plan Colombia are we discussing here? Is it the first version which was sent straight to us, in English, from the United States before being submitted to the Colombian Congress or the second version, intended for Europe, which stresses the social aspect but certainly does nothing to conceal the basically military nature of the plan. This programme of aid to the Colombian Government aims to combat drug production and trafficking. How is it going to do this? By providing the Colombian Government with weapons. This military equipment is apparently going to be used to destroy cocaine plantations. You will forgive me if I am somewhat dubious about the use of these weapons in a country which, since 1948, has been devastated by a war sparked off by socio-economic reasons that are valid today, but which is increasingly becoming a war between the military-paramilitary alliance and the people. Exactly who does Plan Colombia see as the opposing forces? Officially, it is the Colombian State combating drug traffickers. In reality, the drug barons are protected by paramilitary groups, who are in turn trained by the Colombian army. These are the groups that are killing peasant farmers, the coca growers, and driving out the people living in areas valued highly by the oil companies. That is without even mentioning the pressure exerted on the supporters of the ‘Nunca Màs’ project who are fighting to keep the memory of these atrocities alive. On the pretext of combating drugs, a war is being waged against the civilian population,. This plan provides direct support to the murderers, by which I mean the paramilitary groups, that have already killed over 150 people since the start of the year and whose close links with the army are obvious. Moreover, on no account can the European Union sanction the lack of democracy or legitimacy evident at the signing of this agreement between the American and Colombian Governments. The European Union and the Member States should not cooperate with this plan; they should oppose it, as do the NGOs and local social movements. There is no question of sharing the responsibility with America. Responsibility for what? Millions of deaths? Can we accept Plan Colombia? I support the view of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. We shall, therefore, vote in favour of this resolution which, far from recommending arms donations, proposes quite the opposite approach, i.e. to encourage scaling down armed conflict, to fight the association of the military and paramilitary groups, to show respect for those working in defence of human rights and to improve the living conditions of the population in conjunction with social movements, rather than against them. Holding talks is the way to achieve peace, not waging war.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I will do my best to replace Mrs Paulsen who put the question. Commissioner, I understand from your reply that you actually share the concern of Mrs Paulsen. The question contains a suggestion that the situation is extremely serious across Europe. The Commission needs to take special measures and review the situation. From the Commissioner’s reply, I understand that you share the view that such a review is necessary. What we would like to see, and what Mrs Paulsen would like, is for Commissioner Bolkestein to promise here and now that the matter is being monitored carefully and that there is a readiness to implement measures and carry out an investigation and an analysis. Finally, I would just like to tell Mr Bolkestein that in my country, Sweden, where we have the highest food prices, there is a movement to improve the situation. We know that food prices account for a great deal of what European citizens have to pay out each month, not least those on the lowest incomes.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, like many of the Members, I voted for the extension of Regulation 1408 because it is only right that all the citizens of the European Union who, during their working lives, have worked in various states in the Union, should receive a pension, a good pension. I would like to take the opportunity to add that Regulation 1408 would be even better if it made it possible for workers to transfer their contributions, paid in each state where they have worked, to the state from which they would like to receive their pension. This is already provided for in many bilateral agreements; we could also implement it in the European Union so that, as the years go by, we can have pensions that are increasingly better, more acceptable, larger and more substantial. – Motion for a resolution (B5-0575/2002) on the wreck of the 'Prestige'

Political group: PPE-DE
Working in two different places is an operational nightmare for the European Parliament and, more importantly, an unbearable burden on the European taxpayers expected to back the ultimatums of governments in certain Member States of the European Union. That money should be squandered like this on working premises is intolerable, especially when attempts are being made to cut back on the number of languages used in the work of the European Union, which are vital if every citizen is to be able to enter Parliament, irrespective of his or her level of education, and every citizen in the European Union is to have a full understanding of the work of Parliament. I believe that the European Parliament should have one seat, especially following the enlargement of the European Union, and that this seat should be located as close to the geographical centre of the enlarged EU as possible and should be more politically balanced between north, south, east and west than it is at present.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, one cannot but feel disgust and indignation at the scenes of lynching, no less, of Moroccan day labourers which took place in El Ejido. We do not the extent to which far-right commandos were to blame and how far the common people stupid enough to follow these commandos were to blame. We wish to assure these Moroccan workers that they have our full support – as if being exploited by unscrupulous employers were not enough, they have to suffer this type of aggression. And if the aggressors include working-class people, all we can say to them is that, in acting in this way, they are digging their own graves. In waging war against people who are as poor as they are, they are only doing their own exploiters a favour and preparing a future of oppression for themselves. But there are some who bear even more responsibility than the thugs who wielded the iron bars and knives: those who spread racist and xenophobic slander, those who indulge in anti-immigration demagoguery in Spain, Austria, France or elsewhere, sometimes even here in this House, are no better than those who take this stupid, reactionary demagoguery at face value. The lynch mob and their extreme right-wing mentors are the mortal enemies not only of the workers, but of society as a whole.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that the Pacific always evokes images of paradise: beaches, coconut palms, sun. Today, the reality is far sadder. The two coups d’état that have taken place in Fiji recently in fact show unstable States divided by poverty. The most incredible thing in this matter, apart from the passivity of our institutions, is that the pretext of interethnic tension is always used to explain such conflicts. We are well aware, however, that the true cause is not just that. In the Solomon Islands, the vast majority of the population is Melanesian and Christian. In Fiji, almost half the population is of Indian origin, but these origins date back to the last century. Moreover, in spite of these differences, all these people are at home in Fiji. I believe there are causes other than this ethnic conflict. For example, we deny the role played by those who make a profit from these conflicts: multinationals and local politicians. For the former, periods of instability mean fewer social, tax and environmental obligations as the State is very weak in these cases and conflicts favour the arms industry as the political groups need to get their weapons from somewhere. As far as politicians are concerned, the practice of pitting one group against another, as, for example, the far right does in Europe, allows a political vacuum to be created or power to be maintained. This practice is only possible because the population is poor and suffers from a lack of knowledge of other groups. In this case, the two conflicts should have enabled some people to take back or gain power that they could not win through the ballot box. In Fiji, the coup d’état was fomented by a bankrupt businessman who used his distant Fiji origins to legitimise his actions. As for the new Prime Minister, he is also from a business background. In the Solomon Islands, a sham parliamentary vote brought a new Prime Minister to power, elected by the power of the gun. These two examples support our vision of the conflict. The joint resolution, however, is too sanctimonious and effectively wants to restore the previous situation. As is all too often the case, it does not refer to the true sources of these conflicts: poverty and the underlying self-interested role of political and economic participants. From this point of view, if we want to be really effective, we must prevent further conflicts and to do so, we must genuinely aid the development of education, the local economy and local democracy. This is how we might succeed in changing things.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I join my colleagues who have welcomed the fact that we have come to a time when there is recognition of an indigenous people that for a long time has been isolated and, what is more, in a complex situation, because there were people who considered themselves to be their representatives and who actually were not. I think that we must congratulate President Fox, his political group and all the Mexican political forces that have been capable of understanding that there needs to be direct understanding with minorities because democracy requires representatives and direct spokespeople and, at the same time, the acceptance of a culture of diversity, something that Europe is defending and which is part of our identity. I would also like to say in this vein that I think that the climate of dialogue that has been created is one that Europe should generously join in with and, in this respect, I think it is right and proper that whoever necessary should be received, that the Zapatistas should be received, that they should be welcomed in Europe and that we should offer them our hand. Now what I would not like at all would be for us to understand that we are creating a parallel relationship. I think that the democratic openness that the Mexican Government and the Assembly have shown by receiving the Zapatistas in their symbolic building, Parliament, is an institutional triumph and we should therefore understand that the Zapatistas should also be included with the invitation that has already been extended to President Fox. This is because we consider that we are in favour of strengthening institutions – because without strong institutions there is no democracy – and, at the same time, of the presence of all minorities, groups and associations who wish to knock on our door to ask for our help, to tell us about their specific characteristics and diversity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to make explanations of vote on two reports combined: on the Cappato and Cederschiöld reports. I voted against both these reports. There is a great danger, first of all, in relation to the blanket retention of information on users. It raises serious questions about civil liberties. With cybercrime we have the situation where new forms of crime are being created. The lack of attention to civil liberties, the lack of attention to people's basic right to privacy is being overlooked. There is a great danger here that in future we will have a society where people are afraid to communicate and use modern technology because they know that their communications will be intercepted, listened to, and be in the hands of people who have no right to them. Before we start looking at bringing in legislation in these areas we should first of all ensure that people's basic rights and civil liberties are protected. Both are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the EU Treaties. The emphasis here is to use scare-tactic arguments such as the issue of paedophilia, terrorism, drugs or arms trafficking. These are issues which are very emotive. People are very willing to allow legislation to be put in place and oppressive measures to be brought in because they are concerned about these issues. The fact that I voted against does not mean to say that I am not concerned about these issues. But first and foremost we must protect people's basic civil liberties as enshrined in international law. We should not overlook that. What kind of a society will we have if people's basic rights are overlooked in the combating of other crimes? There are a lot of similarities between the two. We have to remember that. - Nisticò Report (A5-0272/2001)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I came into the Chamber to vote against this report as a protest against the misleading and inaccurate comments made by Mrs McKenna in relation to the management of the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom. I see that Mrs McKenna felt so strongly about the matter herself that she did not bother to attend the vote. I can only hope that the rest of the debate and the report are more accurate than Mrs McKenna.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Danish presidency set itself an extremely ambitious agenda for the Copenhagen Summit. As a result, two fraught days were spent in Copenhagen negotiating a financial package, with divisions at one stage threatening to stall proceedings. However, once this had been resolved, the EU formally invited eight countries from Central and Eastern Europe, plus Cyprus and Malta, to join in 2004. This was a momentous occasion in European history, finally bringing to an end the divisions created by the Cold War. However, it must be said that enlargement is not yet complete. Negotiations have still to be concluded with Bulgaria and Romania and have yet to begin with Turkey. I endorse the commitment given at the Copenhagen Summit to start the negotiations with Turkey in 2004, subject, of course, to a review on progress on human rights and rule of law issues. I have consistently argued that the accession of Turkey could form an important bridgehead between East and West and help consolidate Turkey as a secular democracy and a calming force in an otherwise unstable region. As a result of these momentous decisions, our new neighbours will be Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Now is the time to consider what sort of relationship we want to develop with these countries and how far we want it to go. In conclusion, I am pleased that the recent uncertainty regarding the timetable for enlargement, which was partly due to our rejection of the Treaty of Nice in the first Irish referendum, has been removed. It will now proceed in May 2004, ironically under the Irish presidency and indeed, Mr President, during your final six months as President of this Parliament. I look forward to welcoming the new accession countries into the EU family on that historic occasion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou on her work, this Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities for the excellent work it has been doing and the European Commission, in relation to equal opportunities policy. It is very important that we take equality seriously. Not only through declarations, but also through intentions, policies and actions. We therefore need to take the pulse of the equality policy, measure it and assess it. We therefore call for quantitative objectives for policies on employment and access for women to information, training and politics. Amongst all of us, men and women, we must make it possible for both governments of the current countries of the Union and the governments of the candidate countries to take equality seriously, to transpose the directives when necessary and ensure that they do not fail to comply with Community legislation. A new stage is beginning in which we will have to be very vigilant. Equality – as many of us here know – needs to be fought for every day and every day no progress is made is in reality a step backwards. Many women are looking to the European institutions. Many of them live far from our prosperous Europe. For them, the progress we can make here is absolutely essential. It is possible that for many of them their only hope is that the European institutions will take equality seriously, both for the women within the Union and for all of those who, because they are outside the Union, encounter many more difficulties fulfilling their expectations of life. We often say that there is no discrimination worse than that which comes from happening to be a woman. One does not choose to be born a woman. One is born one and, from that moment, one faces a huge number of obstacles which would not be there if one were a man. Therefore, given that we women make up half of the citizenship of the European Union, it is essential to attend to their needs and expectations, because they are the needs and expectations of the majority of the European citizenship. We are also talking about the expectations, the rights and the defence of equality for the majority of women in the world. This Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has been working very intensively on all these issues. This committee has achieved, I believe, significant progress, but it is not sufficient. We are interested to see the work the European Commission is doing as well and I believe that this report reflects perfectly both what we have assessed and also everything we are asking for for the more immediate future. I believe that this excellent cooperation in our committee has borne fruit. Now that the time has come to evaluate the work of the year, we can all be pleased.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, investments in roads, railways and other forms of infrastructure are among the most important that can be made in the countries of the old Central and Eastern Europe. Anyone who takes a bird’s eye view of Europe can see very clearly where the old borders between East and West run. This means that the EU and the EU’s Member States have a lot to gain from contributing to investment in better road and rail networks in the candidate countries and from ensuring that these are linked together with the networks in the rest of Europe. For a country such as Poland, which the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has studied from a transport point of view, that is quite obvious. Poland is far and away the largest of the candidate countries and, in the last ten years, it has invested extensively in improvements in roads and railways. We often talk in East-West terms within the EU but, where a country such as Poland is concerned, it is probably just as important to see the issues from a north-south perspective. Poland is now already one of the most important countries in Europe when it comes to transport between North and South in Europe. Clearly integrating Poland into the EU’s transport system is the same as broadening the waistline of Europe. North-South transport would obtain a wider range of possible transit routes. This would ease the burden on Germany, which is something positive – especially from an environmental point of view – and it would also increase competition, which is good for trade. On the day when Poland, together with other candidate countries around the Baltic, becomes a member of the EU, we shall also jointly be able to make greater demands in terms both of marine safety and of the management of the sensitive environment in the Baltic. There is therefore a lot to be gained from Poland’s becoming a member of the EU once the negotiations have been successfully completed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is quite incredible to stand in this Chamber – I can hardly call it an Assembly right now – and realise that we, in fact, have an on-going slave trade in the European Union, too – here, where we commend ourselves for creating peace, freedom, democracy and human rights. It is a serious matter that we should have this type of trade, because it is often not even adult women who are affected but near-children and very, very young people. This trade is very closely linked to drugs and money laundering. Presumably, it is different types of mafia which control it. This report is very good. Like the previous speaker, I want to emphasise that we need to see action taken and that police cooperation needs to be developed and more information made available. I am often sceptical about the very large demands, for example with regard to the environment, which are being made of the candidate States. At the same time, I think it would be reasonable to demand that information be provided to the countries’ own citizens, with other information being directed specially at young women. This measure would not, in fact, require large resources, and it is entirely feasible to implement it. I can therefore only appeal to everyone to vote in favour of the report and to go home and work on their own governments, organisations and the media, too.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I have to say again that I do not agree with the Commissioner, and that this report is indeed very much about the Eurovignette, among other things. The fact is that the introduction of a Eurovignette is dependent on the interoperability of toll systems, which means that the technology must be available, and work, before we can start charging for the Eurovignette, and we all know how urgently we need the money. We know that there is a considerable shortfall of funds in the railway sector. We saw, indeed, in our most recent debates on the necessary size of the European Union’s budgets, that there is in this sector a need for both revenue and for costs to be apportioned realistically, in other words, that railways, which have to pay their way, must, as regards costs, be put on an equal footing with roads, and that HGVs and other freight traffic must also pay to use roads. So we unreservedly back Mrs Sommer as regards the guidelines she has laid down and endorse her statement that we need a solution that is not dependent on technology. The aim is that the technology that is used should be capable of being used anywhere, and soon. That is what we are aiming for, and it is a very good thing that Parliament is sticking to this line. Thank you, Mrs Sommer: we need a practicable solution, and we are right behind you. The introduction of the actual instrument that we need – the Eurovignette, an instrument of policy that this admittedly highly technical report is seeking to bring about – is absolutely dependent on a practicable solution being found. Speaking, then, as a representative of a government that has shown how not to do it, I can say that the – and I am absolutely of one mind with the German on this – see practicability as the decisive factor in a solution. Let me warn you, Commissioner, against going all-out for big technology that does not always work, and neglecting the other practical aspects. I believe that Mrs Sommer’s report imposes the right conditions and shows it has to be done.

Political group: Verts-ALE