GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the events of the last G8 summit in Genoa could prevent us from focusing on the genuine major issues at hand. I will therefore concentrate on these latter issues rather than on aspects which, although important, will be discussed within the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and on which it would be appropriate to wait for the opinion of the Italian Parliament, which has set up a special committee of inquiry. Parliament will, of course, be able to address the issue in a fully informed manner in the future, although, at this point, we can certainly condemn and deplore the use of any form of violence by any party whatsoever in an attempt to resolve issues. It is therefore absolutely essential for Parliament to discuss the major issues of globalisation now and then to lay down a clear political line to follow, undertaking to define tangible parameters to shape the globalisation process, ensuring that its ultimate goal is the development of a new, comprehensive humanism which places at the centre of history the dignity of the human person rather than large-scale financial interests. In this sense, far from being an inevitable source of suffering, globalisation is proving to be a great opportunity to genuinely change the balance of play in the world and confront the dreadful scourges afflicting much of humanity which, in these times in which we live, mean that none of us can be sure of our moral innocence. Even if we take into account the not insignificant humanitarian decisions taken at the G8 summit, it is not easy to accept the considerable unwillingness to change the development model, even partially, step by step. The model remains essentially focused on consumerism and an unregulated market rather than on accepted criteria of solidarity and participation. The basic need is therefore to identify a political and institutional position which is acceptable to everybody and which can be used as a guideline for the globalisation processes. This clearly has to be something more than just the G8. We must speed up our work on this issue if we want to avoid irreparable damage, for we must start from the realisation that the globalisation of politics – the democratic control of the processes of globalisation – proceeds at an exasperatingly slow pace compared to developments in other sectors. There is no current “off-the-shelf” recipe, but I feel that we could start from proposal of the 1996 Nobel Peace Prizewinner who envisages a permanent summit made up of the European Union, the G8, the World Bank, the group of 77 developing countries, Onlus and undertakings to launch and manage a great, worldwide Marshall Plan based on a common universal strategy. That could be described as a utopian dream, but, as Thomas More, the father of Europe would say, without a utopian dream, what would our politics be?

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, following on from your last sentence, may I ask if the report which you mentioned will contain details of how Directive 89/391 has been applied? I ask because this is not the first time accidents have happened. In Perama in particular they have become par for the course. I should also like to ask the following supplementary question: having studied the texts, not that I have any highly specialised legal knowledge in these matters, I found other directives which, to judge from their titles, appear to relate to the matter under discussion here. Directives 89/656 and 99/92 concern explosive atmospheres and work in such atmospheres, which is what caused the accident in Perama. Surely these directives have a bearing on the matter? And, in any case, and I only ask because you said that you are waiting for news from Greece, and rightly so, does the Commission not periodically examine the prevailing situation on its own initiative, at least in highly sensitive areas which already have a history, such as Perama?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I too, of course, would like to express my solidarity with the countries of the South, but I hope you will not mind if I, instead of repeating everything my fellow-Members have said, concentrate on the drought in my own country. Those of us who cast our minds back somewhat further, Commissioner, know that very dry summers have been a frequent occurrence, and so I am not one of those who regard this summer of the century as a quite unique phenomenon, but, farms being as financially stretched as they are, we can hardly dismiss this summer of the century as nothing more than an occupational hazard. Like the harvest report that has been presented, the Ministry’s official figures also confirm that the drought has brought on extreme losses to the harvest in Germany, but also in its European neighbours, and you have already pointed out that the European Commission has taken initial steps to enable the direct payments that are in any case due to farmers to be made more speedily and at an earlier date. Although I see that as an encouragement, this does not add up to extra money. It strengthens farms’ liquidity, enabling them to buy in feedingstuffs and sow new crops. Let me ask you, though, something that has been briefly discussed in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, that is, whether there are indeed no uncontracted funds available in the EU’s agricultural budget. I would have thought that resources were available. Is it not conceivable that this is an area where help could be given more speedily – with co-financing at national level, which is what some of the German federal states are considering? Let me say by way of conclusion something that has already been mentioned very often – that the eventual consequence for forestry, including in our country, will be that many farmers’ own financial resources will be insufficient to permit reforestation. If we are to talk in terms of rural development, this is where we should be giving really serious thought to how we deal with this problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I would like to thank and congratulate Mr Camisón on the both meticulous and prospective work that he has done in writing his report. Thanks to him our colleagues can be aware of the expectations of the citizens of the Union and therefore of the task of the Committee on Petitions. The situations in which petitioners find themselves are often Kafkaesque. That is what comes out of reading some of the cases mentioned by Mr Camisón: whether they are problems of recognition of qualifications, discrimination, payment, or withdrawal of vehicle registration, the complexity is such and the obstacles so clear that citizens feel completely powerless. The combined work of our Committee and the European Commission means that, by dealing with the problems, what is felt to be injustice can be corrected. The Committee on Petitions can go further, however. It can involve citizens in drawing up Community rules. On 13 June, I had the honour of putting a report on silicone implants to the vote in Parliament. This report is an example of the use, which is unfortunately all too rare, of paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 175 of the Rules of Procedure, which says in particular that the committee responsible may decide to draw up reports on the petitions that it has declared to be admissible and, if necessary, to put motions for resolutions to the vote in Parliament. This was the case for the report for which I was responsible. It was following two petitions collecting more than 1000 signatures that this report was undertaken. But it was only the second time since the Committee on Petitions was created that a resolution adopted by Parliament resulted from direct complaints from citizens of the European Union. As advocated by Paragraph 18 of Mr Camisón’s report, in this case our Committee called on STOA to make a scientific analysis of the problems encountered by petitioners. Increased use of Article 175, an idea that is defended by the rapporteur, should enable our Committee to make a direct link between citizens’ problems and all the Members of the European Parliament. In my view, this is a political recognition of truly listening to citizens and it is one of the paths for the future for the Committee on Petitions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, many of us, particularly on this side of the House, wish to strengthen relations with the United States. In these dangerous times it is vitally important that democracies should come closer together and that any differences should be minimised. I am encouraged by much of the positive and constructive language in the resolution before us and I am particularly pleased that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy adopted my amendment calling for the establishment of a transatlantic single market by 2015. We must now work to turn that aspiration into a reality. It is a pity therefore that an otherwise good resolution is spoilt by some sniping against the United States or a subtext that has little to do with transatlantic relations and more to do with the obsessive movement towards some sort of European state. The integrationalists clearly visualise just two interlocutors in the transatlantic relationship, the US and the EU. The ambition is also for the EU to speak for the European countries in NATO and the UN. Indeed, in the objectionable draft European Constitution there is a requirement that the new EU Foreign Minister should present the EU case in the UN Security Council in certain circumstances. As a United Kingdom representative, I cannot accept that the European Union should represent us in our dealings with the United States on defence and security matters. For over fifty years NATO has provided the forum where the nations of Europe and of North America have discussed the great security issues of our time and agreed on necessary action. Difficulties arise when other institutions come into the frame. It is misleading our own citizens and our allies to suggest that the development of an autonomous EU military capability has anything to do with reinforcing NATO or is motivated by the desire to work in close partnership with the United States. I see no willingness among many EU Member States to contribute more military resources to the defence of the democracies and there is a lack of political will to deal robustly with the security threats that we face. We have no wish to see the EU as such involved in defence policy. We welcome rapid progress in the creation of a transatlantic single market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I gather from the display that the next report is the Bouwman report. Does that mean that there is not going to be a debate on the WTO?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the paradox of the UN is that whilst universal human rights are its essential strength, its Charter is firmly built on the sovereignty of states. The weakness of the European Union lies in the fact that it has been incapable of integrating the sovereignties of its Member States in a way that would have led to consistent respect for human rights and a foreign and security policy which is genuinely based on global multilateralism. Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union has often proved very unsatisfactory in this regard. Of course there are exceptions, as exemplified by the support for the UN International Criminal Court. The 2001 action programme against torture, on the other hand, has been very much a case of empty rhetoric. The EU in this way is still a creation of the Cold War, merely searching for its identity and role in the world. In the absence of a strategy, tactics become the strategy, and action is taken on an ad hoc basis. It is partly for that reason that the EU has less muscle in the UN than its importance and contribution might warrant. The Commission’s UN communication from the autumn and the recently published document ‘The Enlarging EU at the UN’, as well as the report now before us contain a lot of useful information and many interesting proposals. It is not enough, however. Our historic duty is now to take responsibility for creating a more sustainable world order which would cover everything from a cooperation-based security model to the prevention of climate change. Cooperation within the UN and its many special bodies is vitally important. I might mention, for example, the social norms in respect of human rights and the environment for multinational and other companies adopted by the UN’s Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and similar minimum guarantees for loans for development projects drawn up by the World Bank’s International Financial Cooperation. Unless we can correct the worst distortions of globalisation our Community of values too will prove to be nothing more than a façade. We will all then be the losers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner Prodi pointed out that ‘Africa is our responsibility’ and not apparently that of the USA and other major countries. I worked in Africa 30 years ago, and it was poor and underdeveloped but the problems are now more catastrophic. Two million people died of AIDS in Africa last year, approximately 200 000 died in wars. In Zambia 25% of teachers have died of AIDS. In some countries children had a better chance of basic education and health care twenty years ago than they have today. Our policies in Africa lack coherence. There is huge duplication of effort. Furthermore, the cloud of debt remains an obstacle to real development. It is patently clear that Africa has become the forgotten continent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, we have discussed Tibet many times here in this Chamber. This will certainly not be the last time, either. There is a very great deal of solidarity with the Tibetan people here in the European Parliament. The Tibetan people have for many years been exposed to appalling treatment by Beijing, and this is continuing. Perhaps there is, however, a very small light at the end of the tunnel inasmuch as a cautious dialogue has been instituted between Beijing and representatives of the Dalaï Lama. The fact that two people like Ngawang Sangdrol and Jigme Sangpo – two very well-known prisoners of conscience to whom attention has been drawn on several occasions in this Chamber – have now been released from their long-term imprisonment is also very positive. There are, however, many more prisoners. I do not believe that this development indicates any fundamental policy change on the part of China. I only wish that it did. I do not, however, believe that that is the case. It is, at any rate, a step on the way. It is all the more worrying, therefore, that the two Buddhist Tibetans, Tenzin Delek and Lobsang Dhondup have now been sentenced to death. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time and have now been branded as terrorists. They have not been given anything in the way of a fair trial; no evidence has been presented; they have been kept in total isolation for eight months; and now they are to be executed. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party demands a fair legal process in accordance with the rule of law and treatment in accordance with international conventions. As always, we condemn the death penalty wherever it is practised. China’s contribution to the international fight against terrorism appears so far, unfortunately, to have been confined to Beijing’s branding opposition dissidents and various minorities as terrorists and in that way obtaining an excuse for oppressing them. That is not how matters should proceed. The fight against terrorism must always be combined with the rule of law. We shall continue to fight for the rights of Tibet, continue to condemn all human rights violations in China and hope that the Commission will step up the human rights dialogue with China.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, there is every reason for developing ideas around the subject of how Europe is to move forward, but there is also a need to know what it is that has to be developed. Not everything has to be included, but just those things that cannot better be taken care of at national, local or individual levels, such as the internal market, the common currency, external and internal security, borders, customs and certain environmental issues. So far, the proposals relating to democracy are not sufficiently concrete. We therefore need cooperation across the institutions in order to move forward. We must build upon a clear division of power in which political responsibility can be insisted upon. The objectives need to be clarified and the initiatives adapted accordingly. It is necessary to be able to hold people to account in a democratic system governed by law, and the prerequisite for this is a common basis of values with clear guidelines. An effective European democracy requires discussions across linguistic and national borders, together with an education system and media adapted in the light of these. The proposed multi-level democracy can contribute to legitimacy and greater confidence in the institutions, but it must not degenerate into a democracy characterised by bargaining or corporatism and which is so often marked by corruption. Cooperation with civil society can make political measures better suited to their purpose, but the role of politicians must be clearly distinguished from civil society. We now hope that the Commission will in future comply with the values in the proposal and, faced with each new initiative, ask four questions: Is the measure proportionate, that is to say appropriate to the problems that are to be solved? Is the solution in keeping with European democracy? Is the proposal in line with the EU’s vision and basic principles? Can people be held to account? The more people are involved in European cooperation, the better. Do not imagine, however, that legitimacy in itself creates democracy. Rather, it is democracy which creates legitimacy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my reports follow on from the report published last year on Turkey by Mr McMillan-Scott and Mr Swoboda and from the resolution of this House of 6 October which concluded on the importance of expanding the European strategy for Turkey. This House should therefore be able tomorrow to adopt these two proposals for European Parliament and Council regulations on the implementation of measures, on one hand, to promote economic and social development in Turkey and, on the other, to intensify the EC-Turkey Customs Union. The first proposal involves financing, over the next three years, up to a total of EUR 135 million based on Article 130 of the EC Treaty. This requires the codecision procedure to be used. The second proposal which, over the same period, provides for a commitment of EUR 15 million, may come under a simple consultation procedure. The EU is therefore prepared to resume the financial aid decided on in March 1995 under the Customs Union agreements. This aid has been blocked since then due to a lack of unanimity in Council. I will not expand on the reasons for this blockage other than to say that the crisis in the Aegean played a major part. European concerns in the essential areas of respect for human rights and the protection of ethnic minorities were also very much taken into consideration. In this respect, the forum which was requested by this House should have an important role to play. It could use the existing structures, particularly within the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community. The proposals for regulations submitted for our approval will, under these conditions, help to encourage the continuation of the current political development. They contain a clause authorising the Council to take the appropriate steps if it were proven that the most basic rights were being violated in Turkey. This clause stipulates that either this House or the Commission could propose suspension to the Council. I must stress that if we care about the coherence of the strategy adopted and approved by this House in recent months, we should avoid introducing, through our amendments, any measures which would block the process that has been started. We must not lose sight of the importance of encouraging a fruitful dialogue with Turkey, if only, for example, for obvious geostrategic reasons. Finally, as a reminder, although the provisions establishing all this aid involve financing over three years of EUR 150 million, the European Union’s trade surplus with Turkey has doubled since the entry into force on 1 January 1996 of the Customs Union agreement, thereby increasing in four years from EUR 4 billion to EUR 8 billion. I truly believe that the Community must now honour its previous commitments so as not to discourage all those in Turkey who are resolutely committed to the Customs Union route and who have therefore decided to attach their country to the European Economic Area.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted against extra money for military advisers because we believe a peace policy needs peace experts and non-violent conflict resolution. - Stauner Report (A5-0190/2000)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the events of September 11 and the war on terrorism are being used as an excuse in several Member States of the European Union to block progress on an integrated European asylum policy. The number of asylum seekers in the European Union fell by nearly two-thirds over the first 4 months of 2002, compared with the same period last year, having almost doubled over ten years. In Greece, which is usually generous towards asylum seekers, only 59 out of 2,810 applicants were granted asylum in the first half of 2002. This is a dramatic fall in comparison with 2001, when almost ten times as many applications were granted. At the same time, according to statistics from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, most mass movements of refugees are offered refuge by neighbouring, equally poor countries; fewer are opting to flee to the West, that is when they manage to get here at all. For example, out of four million Afghan refugees, only 38,600 asylum applications were filed in the Union last year, i.e. only one Afghan in a thousand asked for protection from the European Union; most fled to neighbouring countries. These statistics speak for themselves and claims that waves of refugees are supposedly threatening Europe and that we should pull up the drawbridge are groundless. At the same time, of course, xenophobia in the European Union is increasing, while the debate has lost sight of what it is that forces these people to travel so far from home in a bid to escape the endless violation of human rights in their own countries. It is not just that strict controls do nothing to prevent asylum seekers from heading for Europe; they encourage many to try and enter illegally, creating work for gangs of smugglers. And as a result, we end up counting corpses on our borders and coastlines and trying to deal with new forms of slavery and exploitation. We agree with the open method of coordination, Commissioner, but it is hardly an integrated solution to the problem and we trust that we shall have an integrated policy by the end of 2003.

Political group: PSE