GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am also just back from the Jenin visit and I share the distress of breaches of human rights law by both sides. We must ceaselessly remind Mr Arafat that suicide bombings are not only morally repugnant but also that they stop us helping him to get a Palestinian State. They play into Ariel Sharon's hands. The majority in this Parliament called two weeks ago for a suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. I support an arms embargo but not sanctions, and I am even more convinced on my return that, while it may satisfy our desire to be seen to be doing something, this is a potential dead end. Presumably, they are meant to work through the Israeli public, feeling the painful bite of loss of exports and jobs, pressurising the Sharon Government to stop its crazy policies. But in Commissioner Patten's interview in Herat on Monday, it was indicated that Brussels was frustrated that the Israelis did not seem to appreciate the EU link. They regard us with distrust, rightly or wrongly. While Palestinians see themselves in a struggle for national liberation from oppressive Israeli occupation, 75 percent of Israelis see themselves as the principal victims, struggling for national survival. I am not commenting on the justification for these two narratives, but how can it help to cut off, as two British professors have urged, academic and intellectual exchanges? These are channels through which we Europeans could convey our experience of using mutual respect to overcome hatreds, helping Israelis and Palestinians strengthen their dialogue. How would it help to stop funding human rights NGOs in Israel? If we suspend the Association Agreement, we will merely reinforce the Israeli perception of a perfidious Europe. What will our exit strategy from trade sanctions be? What conditions would need to be satisfied to restore the Association Agreement? I have not heard anyone explain how that will work. It is much better, in my view, to focus on a different paragraph in our resolution: the need for an international force in Palestine. If our objective is to be effective in achieving a Palestinian State as soon as possible, and establishing peace and justice in the region, we should exert all our diplomatic efforts in that direction and not in suspending the chance for dialogue that we have. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
We have abstained from voting for Jan Andersson’s report on a coordinated strategy for modernising social security. We are basically well disposed towards the European Union. As Swedish Liberals, we see European integration as an opportunity to find solutions to cross-border problems such as the environment, trade, movement across borders, human rights and conflict management. In these areas, Europe’s democracies have a chance to show the world that cooperation leads to peace and increased prosperity. We also believe in the principle of subsidiarity whereby decisions are to be taken as close as possible to those they affect. That is why we are actively pursuing the issue of a constitution for the European Union where the distribution of responsibilities is clear for all to see. It must be perfectly clear to all citizens that the EU will only become involved in those issues it is best qualified to deal with, which is to say cross-border issues. All other questions ought to be dealt with at local, regional or national levels. Social policy is an example of an area in which the EU ought only to have limited powers, except where it is a question of freedom of movement for people within the Union. Each Member State ought to have full responsibility for, and the right autonomously to decide upon, its social security systems. Health care, child care and care of the elderly are clear examples of areas which are not obviously transnational. The same applies to labour market policy. We do not believe that common European legislation in these areas is a solution to the problems involved in designing systems of social security. For us, it is important that the EU should instead concentrate on just a few areas in which it can really be of use. That does not, however, prevent the Member States from cooperating and exchanging ideas in the social sphere. Equality and social security are issues which are traditionally high on our Liberal agenda. We wholeheartedly support, at national level, many of the ideas presented in Mr Andersson’s report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I had the honour to be a part of the delegation to Pakistan's visit to the Pakistani side of the line of control in Kashmir in December. We had the opportunity during that delegation meeting to meet with President Musharraf, and I was much impressed by his commitment to pursuing a programme of peace and reconciliation with India. It looks, for the first time, as though both sides are prepared to think the previously unthinkable and find a resolution, driven by the economic impact on their two economies of a continuing conflict; a conflict that has dogged the world for the last 50 years. Nevertheless, there are still enormous problems in Pakistan regarding human rights, democracy and nuclear proliferation. Colleagues have told us about the treatment of Christian and Ahmadi religious minorities, the situation of women, the deeply flawed election result that Mr Cushnahan oversaw, and the jailing of members of the opposition like Javed Hashmi. I would therefore concur with my colleagues on those concerns. Last year Mr Tannock and I added to our resolution on North Korea the fact that Pakistan had supplied blueprints for a highly enriched uranium technology programme to North Korea for the production of nuclear weapons. At the time, we were roundly attacked by the Pakistani Government and when I raised the issue with Foreign Minister Kasuri during the December meeting I was told that the North Koreans needed no help – they were well advanced with nuclear weapon technology, including miniaturisation. Whether or not they needed help, it is now clear that it was provided. Now new questions are arising about the nuclear test of 30 May 1998 in Baluchistan, which looks as if it could have been a joint test of a plutonium weapon between Pakistan and North Korea. When I raised the issue with the Pakistani Ambassador, who came to see me this week, he said that they were cooperating with the United States. That is not good enough: we in the European Union want cooperation and to be kept in the loop as well. However, despite that, I will support this third-generation cooperation agreement. We will be paying close attention to further progress on human rights in Pakistan.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to explain why I abstained during the vote on the resolution. The resolution includes one point (b) which, in my opinion, undermines an essential foundation block of European institutional architecture: the Commission’s right of initiative, since the Commission must act as a College and have the sole right to put forward European legislation. Parliament believes it has won a great victory since it has obtained the guarantee that President Prodi is going to take account of the legislative initiatives of the European Parliament. This initiative of Parliament’s will surely not fail to elicit requests for the same consideration from Member States and national bureaucracies. You will see that as soon as this happens, the pressure exerted by the capitals of Europe upon the Commission will become greater than the pressure exerted by the European Parliament. I believe we must do all in our power to defend the Commission’s right of initiative, otherwise it will be no more than a mailbox, a merely executive body. This Parliament has considerable political influence on the Commission as long as it remains a political body, but this will no longer be the case when the Commission’s right of initiative is weakened.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me to start by saying that I agree with many of the proposals and amendments because, as we all know, smoking is a scourge, it is a threat, it causes thousands of deaths and we have no choice but to take steps to help the anti-smoking campaign. However, this does not mean that we should want to use the powers granted to us by this act to intervene where it would, I think, be highly unfortunate to do so. To start with, I shall not endorse the attempt by certain members to use this act to stop production aids for tobacco because, as you know, first of all, the European Union has a deficit and imports tobacco from abroad and, consequently, the only outcome would be to penalise poor Greek farmers and benefit producers of imported tobacco. This is not the way to solve the problem of smoking. On the contrary, we need to engage in an anti-smoking campaign. Consequently, I shall not vote in favour of this proposal. On the contrary, I should like to see a logical programme which will really help tobacco producers to gradually restructure their crops and they cannot do so overnight. We must not create unemployment and underemployment in poor regions of the European Union. The second point with which I disagree is this: it is wrong and it is inconsistent and incoherent on the part of the European Union to use this directive to repeal previous directives and timetables granted to the Greek tobacco industry and used as the basis for its business plans. Now we want to repeal them. It is wrong; we need to be consistent and coherent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the WTO conference in Cancún having been a failure, the December meeting of the WTO’s council in Geneva was a non-event, thus, once again, demonstrating that the WTO is in crisis and that the trade policies it practises are no longer sustainable. Further evidence of this is provided by the growing resistance to WTO trade policy on the part of the international social movement. The Commission plays a decisive part in the WTO’s current trade policy. Its tactical approach shows that what really matters to it is not development policy and global fair trade, but only free trade. You asked whether my group would give you a mandate to do the things you have described. To that I can only say that we will not. What would we want to give you a mandate for? For a start, it is high time that we comply with the demands of many developing countries and proceed with an evaluation of what the WTO’s policies have achieved to date. Secondly, agricultural export subsidies, which are ruining millions of farmers in the countries of the South, must be done away with once and for all. Instead of burying developing countries with European agricultural produce at prices that amount to dumping the stuff, the European Union must help these countries to develop sound internal markets and regional economic activity. Thirdly, the GATS negotiations, which will lead to massive rounds of liberalisation in areas of general-interest service provision that have so far been spared them, must be halted. This is another instance in which, instead of signalling the beginning of new rounds of liberalisation, the Commission would do better to give more attention to the evaluation of what has been achieved so far. I will give you a prediction: there will be little on the assets side of the balance sheet where quality, security of provision or price stability are concerned. Fourthly, there is no need to make changes to what we call the Singapore issues; they simply need to be swept away. Rather than endlessly extending the WTO’s competences and adding new topics for negotiation to the agenda, the outstanding tasks on the development agenda have to be dealt with. The WTO’s work must, in particular, get back to focusing on such horizontal tasks as sustainable development and public health. Fifthly, we need to subject to scrutiny the WTO’s structures and the way it works. We call for it to become democratic, with transparency in all negotiations, for all its member states to be treated as equals, and for the procedure for settling disputes to be revised. In particular, we call for the WTO to be a party to the international treaties of the UN and the ILO. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am rising to speak about what has just been said by Mrs Morgantini. In my capacity as chairman of the Socialist delegation which visited Turkey, on Monday evening, after speaking to the Prime Minister, Mr Ecevit, to raise the situation of Mr Birdal and Mrs Zana, and to express our concern – and I would like to point out that we were able to receive the first report which is being discussed by the Turkish government on adapting the Turkish constitution and legislation to the Copenhagen criteria – we held a meeting in the Commission’s headquarters in Ankara with representatives of the NGOs, including Mr Birdal, who participated very actively in the meeting. Yesterday, Tuesday morning, Mr Birdal went to prison to serve the sentence that the Turkish courts have imposed on him. From Turkey we expressed our vigorous condemnation of the fact that a person who has fought for human rights for many years, like Mr Birdal – who has not paid with his life in this struggle, although he has unfortunately paid with his health – had gone to prison. We also expressed our opinion – which I believe is not only that of the Socialist Group but also of the whole of this House – that, in order to set Turkey on a path which may lead to a good relationship conducive to full accession, it is clearly necessary – as the Turkish government is now saying – to amend the constitution and the legislation and also to implement a law of amnesty so that people such as Mrs Zana, who is in prison, or Mr Birdal, who has just gone to prison, do not have to pay for crimes of opinion which fortunately do not exist in any of our countries.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is late, but we are awake, wide-awake even. The alarm bells are ringing, the Gordian knot has not yet been hacked in two, but Parliament, I hope, is not giving up. What is at stake here? At stake are jobs and the way the people of Europe perceive the EU. Thanks to the emergency motion tabled by our colleague, Daniel Varela, we have an opportunity this evening to discuss an issue which is as problematic as it is urgent. It concerns how to deal openly and honestly with the consequences which the failure of the negotiations with Morocco have had for the Iberian peninsular. The bare facts are quickly stated: since November 1990, we have heard, the EU fleet – in practice deep-sea fishermen from Spain and Portugal – has no longer been able to fall back on the resources off the coast of Morocco. The 4 300 fishermen and 400 vessels affected are hoping that the compensation payments will be continued when they expire in December 2001, as Mrs Miguélez Ramos has explained to us so convincingly. Behind these figures there are people, families and whole communities who are committed to a traditional industry and we now need to give that industry prospects for the future. In so doing, our efforts should certainly not be confined solely to giving financial handouts. It is much more important that we – and here I would bring the Commission and the Council on board too – succeed in producing a comprehensive plan which is convincing and whose aim is to provide reduced, but no less profitable, fishing activity, or alternative work. I would take this report as a further direct indication of how extremely important and urgent it is to reform the European Union's common fisheries policy, a task which is occupying all of us at the moment. It is no coincidence that the individual key words – external relations, trade agreements, capacity reduction and extensive restructuring – are also a leitmotif in the working documents on the reform. The current situation in Spain and Portugal also highlights the fact that it is now high time to conclude a package which is really worthy of the name reform. It is unacceptable to reduce members of a proud industry to the level of being simply recipients of charity. As a Community of values we must not allow this. Falling yields have, I believe, helped us to recognise the huge challenges. Let us now work together to identify the right action to take and let us show the flexibility which the rapporteur and also other colleagues have reminded us is so important.

Political group: PPE-DE
To justify increasing tax on diesel fuel where it is lower than on petrol, the Commission either puts forward the argument that harmonisation is needed at European level or gives bogus reasons about protecting the environment. We rejected this proposal, voting against any amendment that would lead to an increase in tax on diesel. We would not see anything wrong with large road haulage companies, which are major diesel consumers, being taxed more. It would be logical for them to contribute to paying for the road network that the State provides for them free of charge, putting them at an advantage over rail transport. But if this were the aim, it is the profits of these companies that ought to be taxed, so as not to penalise private individuals, including those on very low incomes who are often forced to travel in private cars because of a lack of adequate public transport.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, allow me to go back to your reply for a moment. You are of course correct in saying that none of the political groups has asked for a debate on the reports I mentioned. Having said that, I believe that, at the very least, the Conference of Presidents should automatically include the reports on draft directives or regulations on Parliament’s agenda. We are legislators – we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of disposing of legislative reports without discussing them in this House, as this virtually amounts to secret legislation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is a happy coincidence that you have taken the chair this afternoon for it permits me to say with what pride it is that I share with you a constituency under our present electoral arrangements as a fellow Member for Scotland. You have brought credit on our constituency in the dignified and splendid way you have conducted yourself over recent weeks and we are very pleased with that. (Applause) In that constituency, as you well know, it is not taken for granted that what is publicly provided or done is bad and only what is privately done is good. Nor does the Commission take that view. But, as Mrs Wallis has just said, this debate focuses on the very question of what decisions are properly taken by the public authorities, by democratic procedures on the basis of public choice, and what must then reasonably be left to the market to deal with. It is crucial for that dividing line to be got right. Mrs Hautala asked a question which the Commissioner must answer when replying to this debate today. It is a question which can also be addressed to Mr Zappalà, who says that we should only take economic conditions into account, not, for example, environmental or social ones. If Helsinki or Edinburgh became seriously polluted with diesel fumes, that would give rise to costs. Somebody would have to pay to clean them up eventually. To say that is a non-economic cost is simply an odd kind of economics. So we turn the thing round: we ask who shall decide if the streets of Helsinki or the streets of Edinburgh need environmentally friendly and sustainable buses? Who can best take that decision? Is it best taken in Brussels? Is it best taken in Strasbourg by this Parliament? Is it best taken in London? No, it is best taken in Edinburgh or in Helsinki. We need a decision of that kind to be taken locally. Of course, we do not want that decision to lead to unfair consequences. It must be open and transparent. Who can come and bid for this contract and on what terms can they obtain it? That is fine, but do not exclude the local authority, the people of a region, from saying themselves what standards they demand of those who serve them. If that is to be ruled out by European law, Europe will not grow in popularity among its citizens. We must have this kind of clear responsibility for the public good taken by public authorities. I would like to hear the Commission's reply to that point.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I very much welcome the Belgian Presidency's use of the summit as an opportunity to put euro notes and coins at the top of the agenda. Monetary union is, after all, not only for large businesses but also for every citizen. I very much hope that this will be taken as a positive signal. I would like to underline again that the position taken by the Heads of State and Government with regard to the Commission's proposal on charges for trans-frontier money transfers is surely a step in the right direction. We, the European Parliament, will, no doubt, also take this step in the next plenary session. The current situation as regards employment and the economy, that is, the state of the labour market, as well as consumer confidence, should surely be seen in a very critical light. I welcome the Commission's report to the Council on the appraisal of the economic consequences of the terrible events of 11 September. It is, I believe, important that we agree on a Community-wide approach. Not everywhere is there evidence of one. I believe that, in this situation, we must, now as in the past, stick with structural reforms and the advances they have achieved, particularly in the financial markets but also in the markets for goods and services and that we at the same time must not only underline the need for sound finances in the European Union and adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact, but should also make use of the flexibility for which this Pact provides, for we need more investments in the European Union. Now as before, the Lisbon way is the right one, relying as it does on growth that is supported by investment and creates jobs and, above all, on mutual support in economic, employment and social policy. Only when all the macro-economic actors have played their parts can our policy in the European Union be successful. In these times of crisis we must hold fast to this, and the European Investment Bank, too, must be strengthened even more than previously in its task of helping public investments towards breakthroughs in the area of infrastructure. By this I mean trans-frontier infrastructure measures in the EU itself, but also such as will connect our European Union with the states of Central and Eastern Europe.

Political group: PSE