GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as representatives of Europe’s electorate and people, we have some comprehensive tasks as politicians. First, we must ensure a good environment to live in and, second, we must ensure that there is employment, particularly for our young people in the future. In order to achieve a good environment, employment and growth, we must make use of transport links and communications. We must make use of the trans-European networks in a European context. We can thus promote both growth and a good environment. This must also take place in the peripheral northern areas where we have close trade relations with Russia, for example. This would benefit the whole of the EU from an industrial point of view and create opportunities for employment. We therefore propose in Amendment No 47 that the Haparandabanan line should be a priority project within the trans-European networks. The railway is connected to those main lines that together make up an important goods route within northern Sweden and that, in turn, are connected to the Nordic Triangle, the Council’s Project 12. The Haparandabanan line is a missing link. It is a mature project that involves the upgrading and new construction of railways on the Swedish side in order to raise the standard, and a rational track gauge shifting facility at the national border in Haparanda - Torneå. The project would facilitate trade with Russia and improve the environment in the EU. North-western Russia has great access to raw materials which should be of value to European industry and which are transported by this route. An improvement of the rail connection can therefore be expected to contribute to a continued beneficial development of trade. The section of the project relating to track gauge shifting facilities will provide experiences that can be drawn on also in other places in the EU that have problems with the linking of railway networks with different track gauges, for example between the Baltic countries and Central Europe and between Russia and the EU. Finally, I would like to agree with the comments of Mr Savary at the beginning of the debate.

Political group: PSE
The Moderate delegation believes that an EU without internal borders requires efficient and coordinated administration of the EU’s external borders with a view, for example, to combating illegal immigration, trafficking in human beings and drugs and other crime, as well as with a view to handling migration flows. Those Member States that require assistance in monitoring their borders must be able to obtain this following application by the responsible authorities of said Member States. The national authorities must remain responsible for administering and controlling the Member States’ borders in the EU. For the above reasons, we have chosen to abstain from voting. Otherwise, we support the content of the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as we have stated repeatedly, the Group of the European People’s Party condemns any form of fundamentalism and in that sense, we think it important for this report to be drafted in Parliament, and have endorsed it accordingly. Fundamentalists have turned the myth of their religion into a streamlined ideology which forms the basis of their polity, and it is absolutely vital for the West to understand this fundamentalism. Our intelligentsia must make this effort. At the same time, Europe’s Christian, or post-Christian, society must re-affirm its own, moral identity, this with the intention of being better able to protect its own values, and of understanding what is happening in the rest of the world, or what is happening with the 2.5 million Muslims who live in the European Union today. The treatment of women under fundamentalist regimes, the topic of this report, is a burning issue. Denial of their rights and their dignity is unacceptable, but unfortunately, the rapporteur failed to draft a report which draws a distinction between religious perception and the place of religion in society on the one hand, and religious fundamentalism on the other. As a result, religion is being denied what other institutions and movements are being granted, namely the freedom of opinion and expression of this opinion, even if that opinion is partly seen as not conforming to the development of society. I share this view. This is why the Group in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has not accepted the text, despite however much it is opposed to the oppression of women. Together with a number of feminist groups in Afghanistan, I have personally in my group launched a support campaign in order to give them the chance to emancipate. If Europe wants to have any influence at all, and that is, after all, the aim of our campaign – the aim is not to launch an empty slogan, but to exert influence – we will need to learn to understand fundamentalism, whether we like it or not. I should like to conclude my speech with a reaction of the mufti of Marseille. It is in English, and I think that he is right and that it should determine our attitude too. The mufti of Marseille argues that in those parts of the Muslim world in Algeria, Egypt and Afghanistan, where people have tasted discriminatory fundamentalism, they have been completely disgusted by it. Today, this kind of Islamism is in decline but he adds more bleakly: I just hope that this American retaliation, but you can say Europe too, won't be an opportunity for its renaissance. And that is very important that we are not the cause of the renaissance of fundamentalism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that PVC is a material with advantages and disadvantages. It is certainly wrong to confine ourselves solely to the problems of disposing of PVC. Instead, the entire lifecycle of PVC needs to be assessed from various points of view, namely the production of the raw material, its manufacture, use and processing, recycling and finally disposal. PVC is impressive above all because of the diversity of its applications and its long lifespan and thus has a wide variety of uses in particular in the building sector, as well as in many other sectors including medicine. The Commission Green Paper and Mr Sacconi's report put particular emphasis on additives, especially the cadmium and lead-based stabilisers. Industry already voluntarily refrains from using cadmium in PVC products today. The use of lead is also becoming less common. In certain product groups, for example, window frames, many firms are already using calcium-zinc compounds as a substitute for this stabiliser today. We should reward this willingness of industry to innovate and protect the environment by continuing to pursue and promote the system of voluntary commitments. Binding legislative measures should only be contemplated if industry falls well short of agreed targets to reduce heavy metals or increase the percentage of PVC which is recycled. A general ban on PVC products would be nothing short of fatal for 530,000 employees in the PVC sector throughout Europe, 170,000 in Germany alone. That is why it is particularly important for socio-economic factors to be taken into account when alternatives to PVC are developed. Against this background it would be irresponsible to call for a moratorium on PVC. Compulsory marking of PVC products would also lead to considerable distortions of competition. This would neither apply equally to all products nor would it deliver a noticeable environmental benefit. The introduction of a PVC levy, the separation of hard and soft PVC and a ban on PVC in the building sector would be a particular burden on small and medium-sized enterprises throughout Europe. In the European Union alone, 21,000 small and medium-sized companies are affected. PVC as a material needs to undergo a thorough assessment of its entire life-cycle. The problems and advantages need to be weighed up with a critical eye. As things currently stand, a general ban on PVC is neither possible nor sensible and should not therefore be advocated in this Green Paper.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, the liberal group sanctions the agreement reached on Sunday between China and the United States regarding the lowering of bilateral barriers to trade. However, the European Union now also has to conclude the same agreement with China before actual entry into the WTO can take place. Mr Clegg has already touched upon this. There are a few sensitive issues, one of which is intellectual property rights. The liberal group would bring up another condition for China’s entry. The European Parliament has emphasised in various resolutions that Taiwan should enter at the same time as China. Indeed, Taiwan is the nineteenth trading nation globally and has met all conditions of entry for years now. I would therefore put two concrete questions to the Commissioner. Firstly, what is the state of play regarding the Union’s negotiations with China, in particular with regard to intellectual property rights? Secondly, is the Commissioner prepared to fully back Taiwan’s entry into the WTO at the same time as China?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it has taken us twenty-five years to come to the point of a common position which represents a real compromise. I want to pay tribute to Mr Lannoye. He is a parliamentarian of considerable skill, and he has argued his case throughout with force and conviction. But he undervalues his own contribution to this debate, because it is what he has done and others have done that have led us to a position which can be fairly regarded as a compromise. Those who deny that and say that we are still in the position of total obstruction, are really admitting – as those are who wish in the vote tomorrow to reject the common position – that they do not want this directive at all. They do not want to see the addition of vegetable fats anywhere, in any Member State, in any form, for anything called chocolate. That is not a position which either the majority of the Member States or the majority of consumers in the European Union would accept for one minute, and I want to use my brief time to argue the contrary case. If we move on from harmonisation at nought-percent vegetable fat, which has always been in the campaigning argument, we move to a position where we ask for safeguards for consumers, for the primary producers, and essentially for the standards that we set ourselves in the European Union. The amendments that came before the Environment Committee, with the exception of the few that were passed, were wrecking amendments. They were designed to postpone, for the lifetime of this Parliament and the lifetime of this Commission, any resolution of this issue, and that is not acceptable. They called for impact studies to come into force before the directive itself can take effect or all manner of additional labelling over and beyond the double labelling on the packet which is provided here for the consumers. My Group supports the common position with some exceptions, and they will all make themselves heard in this debate. We believe that this is good for consumers. They get a wider choice of product and separate and distinctive labelling. It is good for the manufacturers of all the vegetable fats and I include cocoa butter in this. Cocoa butter is the predominant component of all forms of chocolate, as it will continue to be, also for those who have produced the natural vegetable fats, a specific list which can only be altered with the advice and consent of this Parliament. If I came from Burkina Faso or Mali or one of the countries that produced beurre de karité and I was told that the women’s cooperatives who collect the shea nuts that are a substantial part of their exports to Europe, will be banned or put at risk because they are seen to be stooges of the multinationals, I would be very angry indeed. The last point that I have time to make is to the producers of quality chocolate by the specialised methods we see in Belgium and some other areas. Quality argues for itself. You can have additional labelling if you want. People like me will continue to eat it, but we want people to have the widest choice of all the products which will expand the import of cocoa and added vegetable fats into the European Union.

Political group: PSE
The Group considers that the de Veyrac report is a very important contribution to better protection of world cultural and natural heritage. We are of the opinion that the application of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in the EU is a task for Member States rather than for the European Community. It is difficult for us to see the added value of EU intervention in this matter. The amendments to the de Veyrac report reflect this position. Thus, for reasons of lack of added value and the principle of subsidiarity the Group will abstain in the final vote.

Political group: ELDR
In May 2002, the Bureau authorised the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities to draw up an own-initiative report on an integrated approach to gender mainstreaming in the European Parliament. I must say that the choice of this subject by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities was not my priority, given that there are many other problems that deserve to be addressed by an own-initiative report, problems that concern millions of women in the European Union, such as, for example, the issue of independent social security for spouses helping in small and medium-sized enterprises and in agriculture, where these unpaid, invisible workers are discriminated against particularly in the event of divorce. Women who are fortunate enough to be employed by the European Parliament and those who have succeeded in becoming Members of the European Parliament are certainly not the most discriminated against or the most worthy of pity among females in the European Union, who make up the majority of citizens. Now, however, we have been presented with this report which follows in the footsteps of many others, to which it does in fact refer, insisting on repeating yet again what was enacted years ago and is enshrined in directives and in the statute with regard to employees. Do we really need an own-initiative report to say that Parliament agrees with the provisions of Article 13 of the Treaty prohibiting all forms of discrimination? (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the European Commission, I am only too happy to second the positive statements made by our group chairman Hans-Gert Poettering and Mrs Suominen. I am not going to repeat them. But, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you also said that the Helsinki Summit did not deliver the goods. I thought that was a very apt way of characterising the situation. I shall just cite three disappointing outcomes. My first example is the IGC. Mr Poettering has rightly already pointed out that the three Amsterdam leftovers do in fact represent a very minimal package, and in particular, that the question of qualified majority decision making is still a major point of discussion in the Council. The door is already slightly ajar, but on no account must we lose sight of the fact that the Helsinki Summit failed to adopt the recommendations of the Committee of Wise Men under the direction of Mr Dehaene following the excellent proposals prepared by the European Commission under the direction of Commissioner Barnier. This was a very disappointing development in my view and so I really hope that the Commission and Parliament are in a position to convince the Portuguese Council Presidency that we need to go a little further than is the case at present. Of course security is another area that still needs to be properly resolved. What exactly is Mr Solana’s role and what is the European Commission’s role? If you take a look at the annexes then what you will see are numerous questions relating to the whole issue of democratic control. What does the European Parliament intend to do? What do the national parliaments intend to do? The taxation package certainly was not a key issue but then how can you face the citizens with the news that after so many years the slight increase in taxation of capital that we need is still outstanding. Three thousand jobs are given priority in one Member State but not in others. That is not what solidarity is all about and neither is it something we can defend. I therefore hope that Mr Prodi will take the lead during the next Presidency, so as to ensure that the Member States get the message at long last.

Political group: PPE-DE
The programme of Community action in the field of public health is an important element of the work towards improved public health in Europe. Public health is an issue close to the heart of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and a precondition for a dignified and decent life. We therefore support the Commission’s proposal and the amendments proposed by Parliament in its first reading. However, it is our view that the amendments proposed by Parliament in its second reading would only lead to the concept of public health being undermined, to a breach of Article 152 of the Treaty and to encroachment upon Member States’ self-determination in the area of health care. We have therefore chosen to vote against all the amendments, with the exception of Amendment 1 on respect for the principle of subsidiarity in the area of public health and Amendment 60 on reduced resistance to antibiotics.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I share your view. We are concerned here with three different alternatives. We have now voted in favour of one of them, which mean that the others cease to be options. (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE Report Vidal-Quadras Roca (A5-0465/2001)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing a very important report here today. I should like to begin by saying that this is an exceptionally good maiden report by our new colleague Mrs Hieronymi, who also did a truly first-class job in hammering out compromises in committee with our colleagues and with the and Liberals. So I believe we have cooperated well, even with the representatives of the . Together with the Commission, we have also managed to make a good Commission proposal even better. We do, of course, have a good general idea of what MEDIA I and MEDIA II have achieved. MEDIA Plus, of course, will surely be even better – the mere addition of the word 'Plus' must tell us that. I believe that, at a time when we have been talking about tremendously important educational issues in both Lisbon and Feira, we cannot make cuts in areas in which the products of the education system are supposed to find work. That is why I consider it very important that we really do create opportunities in this field, and to that end we must invest more money in the audiovisual industry, especially in the training of professionals. What is on offer here is therefore insufficient. This is always the case; there is never enough money for culture or for education. But at the end of the day we shall always be answerable to those people to whom we have promised the earth in our fine speeches. What we find here is not enough to enable us to respond to the audiovisual revolution. It will not enable us to develop a genuine European audiovisual policy to challenge the American hegemony in this domain. Nor can it really serve to unlock the full potential of the audiovisual industry to create jobs and, of course, to produce a critical mass of cultural content. I believe we have a duty to keep emphasising this fact. To put it bluntly, a European audiovisual policy has yet to materialise. That is why we must make an all-out effort here. I believe that, as Mrs Hieronymi has said, we could impart a considerable amount of momentum with a little more money. In the sphere of communications in particular, we can make a great deal of progress, including the creation of new jobs. At the same time, I should like to reemphasise that the primary concern of every one of us is of course European culture in all its diversity, as is the need to make it visible beyond our national borders and to portray it universally. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a delegation from the democratically elected parliament of Taiwan visited us here in Strasbourg yesterday at the invitation of Members of the European Parliament. You, Mr President, did this delegation the honour of welcoming them and speaking with them. However, during this visit something happened of which I, and I believe several colleagues here, are ashamed. Last night our guests had to leave in haste because the visa that they had been granted by the French authorities was only valid for 24 hours. All attempts by Members of this House to have this visa extended or to have a visa issued for a longer period failed in the face of the obstinacy of the French authorities. I have two questions for you, Mr President. Firstly, do you consider this refusal to grant a visa for – and this is my suspicion – purely political reasons to be compatible with the values of the European Union, which deems freedom, including the freedom of movement of all people, to be a fundamental right? Secondly, do you, like me and other members of this House, consider this incident to constitute a serious obstacle to the proper functioning of the European Parliament in Strasbourg? If so, what action are you minded to take? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Every effort has been made to portray the Convention as a highly democratic body, on the point of preparing a Constitution which will replace the Treaty. The fact is, however, that this is not quite the case in terms either of the Convention’s procedures or of its membership. The Convention did not include representatives of all political parties, only the larger ones. From the Assembly of the Republic (the Portuguese parliament), the Socialist Party (PS) and Social Democratic Party (PSD) participated in the Convention. The positions of these parties are identical to those which dominate Community policy, insofar as they defend federalism and neo-liberalism. Other political groupings, critical to a greater or lesser degree of such models and approaches, were excluded. That makes it clear what kind of democracy is being upheld here. It is true that the Convention has no constituent powers and cannot alter the Treaties, although that is what extreme federalists would like. The latter believe that a few dozen people, far from their countries and the problems and rights of their peoples, may be more easily swayed by the interests of economic and financial elites in the powerful countries which dream of ruling Europe. Only the Intergovernmental Conference and the national parliaments, however, will be able to alter the Treaties. It is true that the results of the Convention do not exactly coincide with its stated aim of paving the way for ever-deeper integration. The plan – albeit a dangerous one – is to take shorter strides.

Political group: GUE-NGL