GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I welcome the reference to the Treaty of Nice in Paragraph 6 of the joint resolution. It is an important confirmation by Parliament that Nice is necessary to facilitate a successful enlargement process. I want to speak directly to the Spanish President-in-Office at this point. The Seville European Council is important for the many reasons outlined in our resolutions here today. However, without the stepping stone of Nice, much of that will be in vain. You must therefore ensure that the Seville conclusions at least include a declaration that Nice does not in any way modify the Irish policy of military neutrality, currently defined as non-membership of mutual defence pacts. I would also urge that this declaration be accepted as a protocol to the next Treaty changes in 2004. I know that Nice does not impact on Irish neutrality. However, considerable anxiety has been created in Ireland by irresponsible scaremongering on this issue by people fundamentally opposed to European integration, people like my colleague in this Parliament, Mrs McKenna of the Green Group, and the ethnic nationalists of the Sinn Fein Party in Ireland. The provisions of Nice are part and parcel of the ground rules on which the candidate countries are negotiating their membership of the Union. Ireland's failure so far to ratify these ground rules serves only to strengthen the anti-European Union sentiment in the candidate countries, to the detriment of all Europeans. I am also concerned at the grandstanding by some Member States, which are resisting the budgetary commitments needed for the successful development of the accession countries' economies. The public at large does not understand the tactical manoeuvring behind these battles. What they see is a penny-pinching attitude, driven by an accountancy approach to politics, rather than the statecraft our citizens are crying out for. If Seville shows some generosity from our political leaders, our citizens will emulate that generosity in return.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking Commissioner Byrne, something which has not been done today, for I do in fact think that it is a good proposal that the Commission has come up with, a proposal which I should really like to have voted for without changes. It is a good contribution to reducing the poison content of cigarettes and to providing far better information about the damaging effects on health of cigarette smoking. I find it sad that there are MEPs who are trying to weaken the Commission’s proposal. I am thinking, for instance, of the discussion about the legal base. In my opinion, this is a ridiculous discussion. The legal services have agreed that the legal base is in order, and I must say, as a lawyer, that I am rather embarrassed about the fact that the majority of members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market are so unqualified and frivolous and completely confuse the law with their own political wishes. On the question of when the proposed legislation is to come into effect, I would say that I do not think that there is any argument, either technological or industrial, in favour of postponing the date when the lower limit values are to come into force. I should like us to decide on the end of 2003 as the time when the legislation is to come into effect but, as a compromise, we could agree to the end of 2004, if necessary. In my opinion, what is at issue here is an unnecessary impairment of public health. Turning finally to the question of exports outside the EU, I wish to say that, in my view, it would be immoral if we were to allow the export of cigarettes which, on health grounds, we prohibit our own citizens from smoking. Under those conditions, I simply do not think that we can allow ourselves to export more cigarettes which are a danger to health. I could live with a compromise in the form of the year 2006, but I could not compromise any further on this point. I hope that, in the voting tomorrow too, we shall arrive at a result here in Parliament which does not significantly weaken the Commission’s proposal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the action taken by the Commission and Ecofin against Ireland was hasty and excessive. It has damaged the EU and EMU – not just in Ireland, as has been pointed out previously. It has put additional wind into the sails of the opponents of EMU in the countries outside the euro zone. 'That is how much the national freedom to determine one’s own financial and tax policy is worth,’ the opponents of EMU in my homeland cheerfully chuckle. You will no doubt soon hear Herman Schmid express something similar. There is an alarming tendency towards complete centralisation within the Euroland countries. The relative weakness of the euro against the dollar seems to have triggered a number of excessive reactions. Obviously, there is a common monetary policy, but financial, budgetary and tax policy must not and cannot be managed in detail from Brussels. EMU is an instrument for increasing the economic strength of Europe and therefore a certain amount of acceptance is required of the fact that all euro zone countries do not move at exactly the same rate simultaneously. The next time that we get a case like Ireland’s, I hope, Commissioner, that the Commission will think carefully first. EMU must not become a straightjacket for Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, you are absolutely right but I was not fast enough. I was told that the boat was there last week, and the question was raised. We can debate it in September but it is unfortunate because the matter ought to have gone before the Council this week. I will be quicker next time! (Laughter)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I should be glad if we could vote on item IV before I decide about that.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would ask you to apply Rule 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure in this case, which lays down that, in the event of an initiative being rejected, it should be referred back to committee. I am making this request because yesterday in this House Commissioner Vitorino announced two substantial amendments to the initiative, which I believe should be subject to further analysis in committee and, furthermore, this is laid down as an ordinary procedure in the Rule I have mentioned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the rapporteur has explained the position as regards the three Communities and the European Union. This subject is particularly problematic when it comes to foreign policy. For example, in international organisations, in the FAO, we have full membership for one of the Communities, and a seat and a vote on United Nations bodies, but this does not apply across the entire foreign policy spectrum. Let us consider in particular the changes that have taken place on the international scene over the last three years, with Mr Solana taking office in 1999, which represented a political step change in European foreign policy, the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999 and the objective of a common foreign and security policy by 2003. These are ambitious targets which, however, are no longer rooted in the legal basis provided by the treaties. Today, Articles 24 and 38 provide a legal basis for concluding agreements, but they make one of the Communities or the Member States as such responsible. And this House also needs to be aware that agreements are entered into at present without Parliament having a chance to approve them beforehand. Budgetary commitments are made in international agreements which then have to be honoured by Parliament at a later stage because of our particular role. That is why I believe that this issue of the legal personality of the EU needs to be put on the agenda of the Convention again. We need this legal personality in order for the European Union to make a stronger contribution to the United Nations, for example, especially following the events of 11 September. This is in addition to the role of the Member States and is no substitute for individual Member States' membership of the United Nations, but it would give our foreign policy a higher profile, it would increase our scope for action and above all be more transparent to the public. That is the goal that we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy would like to see included in the discussions of the Convention.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the Council's lengthy reply but I still have two questions. As the Prime Minister of Greece, Mr Simitis, has said, we are working on an assumption of 260 000 illegal immigrants this year. Tell me, if you can, how two hundred and sixty thousand illegal immigrants can possibly pass through Turkey unnoticed? This being so, exactly what action has the Council taken with respect to Turkey, with its candidate status and partnership agreement, to make it improve its border patrols and prevent these huge numbers of illegal immigrants? Secondly, and more importantly, what exactly does the Council have in mind? Is it in a position to design a joined-up policy to ensure that this matter is resolved satisfactorily and that borders and illegal immigration are safely controlled? Of course, political asylum seekers are seeking political asylum, but there still has to be some form of control.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order I would have appreciated being given the floor before you called the vote. It is extraordinary that the plenary part-session should allow these appalling ethnic clashes last week in Gujerat to pass unremarked. They are one of the worst examples of ethnic violence, certainly in India, for a considerable time. They raise very worrying issues about India as a secular state. They also raise side issues which could affect Kashmir. It is quite extraordinary that Parliament has refused to take the opportunity to mark its views on this issue. It is quite extraordinary that we are debating clementines rather than ethnic violence in India, given the huge importance of that subject. (The order of business was thus established)(1)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Indonesia is a massive country, both in terms of population and area. It is also a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-region nation, and any Indonesian Government has our sympathy and goodwill in its efforts to hold its disparate regions, religions and cultures together. To do so, as our motion suggests, it must face up to the causes of disunity and confront those of evil intent. I was recently in East Timor as the EU's chief observer. I saw for myself the aftermath of the depths of depravity to which an out-of-control situation in that part of the world can sink with militia terror, destruction and murder, with the military standing by. I hope that Indonesia will now both set an example by holding out the hand of friendship to the new nation of Timor Loro Sae as it becomes independent on 20 May, but I also hope that it will learn from Timor in dealing with other parts of Indonesia, particularly the Moluccas, Papua, Sulawesi and Aceh. Laskar Jihad is a threat to the first three of these. Laskar Jihad's website used to boast of links to Bin Laden terror groups. We know that 5,000 Moluccans have died. Another 12 Christians died recently on the same day that the leader of Laskar Jihad, Thalib, launched his renewed jihad. On 4 May we heard that he had been arrested. That is almost one year to the day since he was previously arrested – and what happened? There was no trial, no sentence. He was quietly released when the world stopped looking. We have, Mr Commissioner, to make sure that the world does not stop looking on this occasion and we want to make sure that action is taken. We want the authorities there to investigate links to the military. How did Indonesian army weapons and ammunition – I have the photographs in front of me – come to be in the hands of Laskar Jihad? How is it that in Papua six members of the army's special forces are now accused of involvement in the assassination of a Papuan leader? Who gave those orders? We are proud to be friends of Indonesia, but we can only be friends of a country that genuinely strives for justice, reconciliation, peace, security and the trust of its own people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the way the voting went this morning reinforced our bitter feeling that the draft European Constitution flouts fundamental social desires and mounts a serious challenge to the European social model. In particular, the precise, profound and dangerous threat hanging over public services was, I am sorry to say, confirmed by this House. It was from then on impossible – not to mention other reasons such as the stubborn refusal to consider constitutional or legislative regions – to want, as the majority do, the Intergovernmental Conference not to modify the grave imbalance created in this way between the powerful and the weak. This is why we voted against this report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, faced with the social catastrophe which the collapse of Sabena represents for Belgium, I should like to add a little humanity to this sitting, by dedicating my first words to all those who, from one day to the next, found themselves, to put it bluntly, deprived of their jobs. I would ask those who would seek to use this specific issue in order to criticise public enterprises to measure well the responsibilities of all those concerned. Yes, Europe is responsible when, along with the Commission, certain parties urge rapid, inhumane and brutal liberalisation, and yes, Europe now appears to everyone to be the real driving force behind this process. People no longer want this kind of Europe. They now want to construct with us a social Europe, the Europe that we defended at Lisbon, which develops convergence indicators in order to increase employment and combat unemployment, in other words a Europe which refuses to be dictated to by the market. The 12 000 Sabena workers who were dismissed at the beginning of this month are the first victims of this wave of liberalisation in civil aviation. The results of other European companies are giving cause for concern. Thousands of people are afraid of being thrown out of work, and they cannot understand the intransigence of the European Commission over repayment times for bridging loans to the Belgian company, while the United States are spending billions of dollars on subsidising their national airlines so that they can keep their European slots. They find it unacceptable that the Commission should give preference to sanctions and ukases, in the name of the virtues of liberalism and the market, while at the same time that out-of-control liberalism culminates in companies in Europe closing down one after the other. By setting up the Lisbon process, the Community authorities and the Member States have proved that they are capable of taking into account the human and territorial consequences implied by every decision. Such blind liberalisation will do nothing to advance the cause of the European idea or to increase confidence in Europe’s institutions and in our plans for peace and social progress. It will inevitably lead the public to reject this European and simplistic vision. Commissioner, the European Parliament’s vote on the Langen report two days ago, confirmed that there are certain sectors that should not be open to competition, and among those sectors are the sectors with which you are concerned. Let us be clear about this, we do not reject the idea of modern and efficient public enterprises, and we do not want them to be sacrificed and ridiculed. We are waiting for a forward-looking vision of economic development, a project which is humane and intelligent, and which will enable sustainable development to be achieved. I hope that that is what we shall see on 3 December.

Political group: PSE
President Mugabe is allowing his people to starve and is blaming the West. It is not he who has driven his own people to starvation, but the neo-liberal development model. It is not he who has crushed democracy, violently intimidated his political opponents and manipulated elections, but the neo-colonial powers in Europe. It is not he who attacks the independent media, but reprobates who are beyond his control. It is not he who allows his militia to rape women who oppose him, but total strangers. And it is not he who withholds food from his political opponents, but the enemies of Zimbabwe. All this former freedom fighter's political actions now have just one goal: how to stay in power at any cost. No decent person objects to land reform, but every decent person objects to land reform as practised by President Mugabe. Farmers are deprived of everything without any compensation and are forced to flee. It is not the people of Zimbabwe who get the land they are entitled to, but Mr Mugabe’s political buddies. The President was allowed to unashamedly propound misleading political propaganda at the Johannesburg Summit. The so-called smart sanctions against the regime are not being particularly smartly enforced. The penalties must be applied more strictly and the target group must be expanded. I therefore ask Commissioner Patten what the position is regarding the promised investigation into the freezing of these men's assets in Europe. It is high time that new, honest elections were held in this country. President Mbeki of South Africa and other leaders in the region must ultimately accept their responsibility and must support the people of Zimbabwe and not a president who neglects his citizens because of his own hunger for power.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the Dutch version of Amendment No 38 has not been correctly worded. It should follow the English version, which reads, “a natural person for his or her private use”. The words “his or her” are not present in the Dutch version, so this must be adapted in accordance with the English text.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, for a long time now, one thing that we have been able to rely on in Austria's domestic political scene is the Freedom Party and Jörg Haider bombarding their critics – the media in general, individual journalists, other politicians and also individual members of the public – with lawsuits. The current Minister for Justice has in the past appeared in court in connection with some of these cases in his capacity as a lawyer. Many of the legal judgments handed down are most interesting, because Austria's judges can now at least still display sufficient independence. Not long ago, for example, it was established at appeal in the case brought by Jörg Haider against the university professor Anton Pelinka, which also attracted international attention, that the statement that the Freedom Party was playing down Nazi atrocities was permissible. We would also have expected a similar clarification of a fundamental point in the case of the lawsuit brought by Jörg Haider against our fellow Member Johannes Voggenhuber, by which I mean establishing whether or not the Freedom Party is a fascist, neo-fascist, or post-fascist party. In order to establish the facts of the matter, Johannes Voggenhuber, in contrast to his colleague Mr Sichrovsky, has himself asked for his immunity to be waived. However, for reasons of principle, which I support, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has been unable to accede to this request. Nevertheless, I hope that it will be possible to achieve legal clarification of the nature of the Freedom Party in some other way. I would now like to use my remaining speaking time to point out that I am amazed that the report on the Sichrovsky case as adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was amended before it reached the plenary, so that in many places it is no longer as clear as when it was adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I arrived back yesterday from Palestine and Israel, where over a thousand Italians – representatives of district, provincial and regional councils – have been spending a week building peace bridges between Palestinians and Israelis and setting up projects for cooperation with the Palestinian people. Jerusalem is at the centre of the conflict, and it is one of the key factors in the peace process. For the Palestinians it is a town to be shared with East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian State and West Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel. For the Israelis, before Camp David, no part of Jerusalem could be touched. Now the taboo has been broken. Yet the Israeli negotiators are still extremely uncompromising, for the problem is not that the Palestinians do not want to make concessions but that they have the right to the return of the territories occupied in 1967 which is enshrined in the UN resolutions. Since 1993, Jerusalem has been a closed city for the Palestinians. As Commissioner Patten said, the Israeli Government has many times failed in its obligations following the Oslo negotiations: they have not adhered to the timetable laid down in the agreements for the withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories. For the Palestinians, the divided territories are a nightmare. There is no free movement and over a thousand prisoners arrested before 1993 have been held in prison as if they were hostages. Their imprisonment is a constant threat to the peace process. However, a genuine tragedy for the peace process and the future of the Palestinian State is the continued increase in Israeli settlements: under the Barak Government, over 41 000 settlers moved into in the occupied territories. And I, together with the thousand Italians, saw these settlements expanding all over the place. This is a genuine crime against peace, but also against the environment and nature: just one example is the mountain of Jellab Edumin, a green hill outside Jerusalem which has been destroyed by bulldozers. Another key factor are the refugees: they are not merchandise but human beings who want to realise their right or their dream to live in their own land or see it once again. It is makes no sense for them not to be able to go back: Palestinians, who were born there, are not even allowed to visit it. Peace is necessary. It is on everyone's lips, but peace can only be achieved if each person is allowed to exercise his right of citizenship in his own free State. As Europeans, we must make every possible endeavour – over and above the economic efforts which we are already making, we must increase our political role – to ensure that the law prevails and that the Palestinians are able to live in their democratic State, which we must recognise as we recognise the Israeli State, so that Jerusalem becomes an open city, a city of the world, the capital city of two peoples and two States.

Political group: GUE-NGL