GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to stress the support of the and of my party, Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya, in order to ensure that this Presidency ends with a positive assessment, with distinction, which will include it in the category of the two previous Spanish Presidencies. Of the issues mentioned as priorities for the present Presidency, I would like to stress the following three. That the meeting of the Barcelona European Council, in March, provides concrete commitments and results which can be confirmed, in order to ensure the effective implementation of the structural reforms and liberalisation processes necessary for complying with the objectives set in the process initiated at the Lisbon Council. That the Euro-Mediterranean Council serves to promote a new stage in the process begun, also under a Spanish Presidency, in Barcelona in 1995, in order to ensure greater and better cooperation between the European Union and the third countries of the Mediterranean. We are in favour of the creation of a financial institution which allows the full and effective application of the funds agreed for the Mediterranean programmes. We must intensify the Union’s external policy, in which much of its future peace and stability is at stake. In your key role as a member of the Praesidium of the Convention, we ask that you ensure the incorporation and participation of the constitutional regions in the institutions of the European Union in the constituent text to be agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference of 2004. As the chairman of the stressed in his speech, the European Union cannot be considered complete unless it includes the full participation and integration of the Europe of the Regions. It is an issue to which, under the Spanish Presidency, which will begin with the Convention, we attach the greatest importance, as has been stressed.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I just wanted to say to Mr Swoboda that he sometimes finds it difficult to decide whether he is speaking here as the Vice-Chairman of the Group of the , as a Viennese politician, or as a former Viennese politician. I sometimes get the impression that his statements have more to do with the fact that there are local elections in Vienna on 25 March.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to start by making an unusual statement. I should personally like to let the Commissioner know that our thoughts are with him in the difficult times he is currently facing on account of his wife’s illness. The Group wholeheartedly and fully endorses the compromises that have been made. A number of my colleagues, for reasons of their own, will be tabling an amendment on the paragraph on ethics, the so-called 32 signatures procedure. I welcome the fact that our colleagues use this right to demonstrate that, in their view, the paragraph on ethics has not gone far enough. Quite honestly, I also hope that the Council and the Commission will seize the opportunity to come closer together in the near future, and closer to Parliament, and hold discussions with each other about ethical issues. The ethical issues have not been solved by the Sixth Framework Programme – we know that there is a significant level of divergence between the Member States – but in my view it is most definitely worthwhile for us to continue to exchange ideas with each other on this score. I should like to thank Mr Caudron for his excellent, open and communicative style of cooperation. I should also like to thank our chairman, Mr Westendorp, for his sterling advice and support. I should also like to extend my intense gratitude to the Commissioner, his cabinet and the members of the Commission for their extremely positive attitude and I should also like to thank the Council in particular. The Belgian Presidency was first-rate, but the Spanish Presidency is a fine example of how it is possible for the Council and Parliament to work together, and I believe that it is thanks to the Council that we have managed it. Except, of course, that the budget has made a distinct shift towards us. Needless to say, as an MEP, you always want more, but ultimately you have to accept the compromise. Personally, I am delighted that in the area of cancer research we have managed to set an example of how you can allocate both National and European funds and how you can develop far greater strength in cancer research by combining two funds. I am extremely pleased about that. I also welcome the fact that the relationship between the framework programme and the specific programme has gained in strength and coherence, and I would also thank the Council for its efforts in this area. All in all, I am of the opinion that the long journey we have undertaken to ultimately achieve this result has been very worthwhile. We can, however, also tell the scientific world that Parliament, the Council and the Commission have joined forces in order to produce the best possible result that we could possibly manage at the time, and in my view this is a great success today, not only for the Commissioner, but for us all. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I wish to ask, what is your assessment of the integration of the Iberian electricity market, given that it has recently experienced some setbacks and that the agreement entering into force will only be provisional? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the integration of the Iberian electricity market, which is, when all is said and done, our closest market?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have an interesting case before us. I think that a sharp mind must have worked on this report. The rapporteur has managed, in an exemplary fashion, to tease weaknesses out of an agreement and, reading the explanatory statement contained in the report, Mrs Lucas, I get the impression that it may be paving the way for some form of Euro-imperialism. I have two specific points to make. Firstly, as regards the democratic weaknesses which have been pointed out time and again in the explanatory statement, we are setting standards for Mexico which only a strong country can allow itself to set for a weak country. The need to adapt Mexico’s constitution to bring it into line with this agreement in particular is questionable to say the least. It reminds me of the deficits which the European Union has itself towards its own citizens due to a lack of democratic legitimisation. The second point which, in my opinion, should not be forgotten is that Mexico is not only an important trading partner for the European Union but, in the mid 1990s, went through what the then President of the International Monetary Fund, Michel Camdessus, called the first financial crisis of the twenty-first century. That is why, to my mind, it is especially laudable that special reference is made to problems which countries like Mexico and, especially now, Argentina have through being closely tied to the US dollar. It is very regrettable that the Commission does not follow mainstream opinion, which says that we must pay attention. From my own perspective, I would even prefer to go in the direction of the Bretton Wood system. The relevant precautions are lacking, as is positive assistance to Mexico. Perhaps the only criticism I would have against the report is that we do not point out in the recommendations that, in the field of financial crises, we should be extending our help.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me start by expressing by deepest sorrow and sympathy for the victims of this tragic sinking. It has been argued, including here in the House that the human factor was to blame. This argument is the least unacceptable. The fact that the ill-fated ship was 34 years old and was not included on the list of ships which – and this too is wrong – were exempted from the additional inspections required under Directive 98/18/ΕC, is positive proof of the unaccountability of the shipping industry which always finds a way, for which governments and regulatory authorities are to blame, of getting round even these generally inadequate regulations, at the expense of passenger and shipping safety. The legal framework for shipping in Greece and in the European Union in general has proven to be inadequate and dangerous and we need new, stricter rules, especially for very old ships, rules without derogations. Equally dangerous is the modus operandi of the regulatory authorities and the shipping register which, by operating as a private, profit-making company, is basically controlled by the very shipowners it is supposed to be controlling. Even the tragic shipwreck has not thrown up any useful conclusions. On the contrary, innocent victims are being exploited in order to promote shipowners’ wider objectives. Hurrying to suspend cabotage in Greek seas, as earnestly called for, including in this joint resolution, will intensify profit-seeking competition between the shipping companies, with even more tragic consequences for passengers. We call on the European Parliament not to approve the suspension of cabotage by rejecting the reference to it in Paragraph 5 of the joint resolution, on which our group has requested a separate vote, and for the European Parliament to approve the involvement of crew representatives in regulatory authorities and shipping registers and the manning of ships in line with the real needs of cabotage by approving the amendments which we have tabled.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the framework decision put forward by the Council merely reproduces the Council of Europe Convention of 1998 on the prevention of environmental crime, a Convention which has not yet been ratified by any of the Member States of the Council of Europe. The sole purpose of this proposal for a framework decision is to speed things up, at least with regard to the 15 Member States. In almost every country environmental laws are based almost entirely on very small fines, and this encourages those who are destroying the environment to maximise their profits by trying to avoid using all the modern techniques available to protect the environment. And so, in recent years we have witnessed major disasters such as that of the Erika, which was a rust bucket used to transport crude oil by sea, or the pollution of the Danube with cyanide from Romanian mines. And all this because, as I was saying, these big companies are guaranteed impunity, with the aim of maximising profits. First of all, this framework decision allows European countries to raise fines to make this offence – environmental crime – unprofitable. Indeed, until such time as environmental crime is paid for by the community and not by individuals, there is no hope of protecting the environment. Another area where this framework decision impacts is that of encouraging European countries to adopt sanctions, or at least a system making environmental crime a punishable offence for legal persons. Few European countries provide for the liability of legal persons in their criminal law, but others are taking steps towards this. Italy too, in revising the new penal code, intends to make legal persons punishable, because today serious environmental crime is not committed by individuals but by large multinationals, which cause huge disasters simply because they do not invest in prevention. European countries should agree on fairly general regulations soon and, in any case, raise fines so that these offences are not paid for out of the community’s pocket. Another important aspect is the cooperation that this framework decision will bring about between countries: an information network enabling a rapid exchange of information and an agreement which requires environmental crime to be considered as a crime that may lead to extradition or for example the confiscation of property and profits, and which, in any case, makes these offences unprofitable. I would just like to point out that the committee approved this report almost unanimously, with only one abstention, and all the political groups, from the PPE to the to the , contributed to improving it. This report therefore expresses the point of view of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms, and, we hope, expresses the point of view of the European Parliament, which must ensure that the European countries at last adopt effective legislation on the protection of the environment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in Aceh, in the extreme north of the island of Sumatra, since the imposition of martial law on 19 May after the breakdown of the ceasefire that had been signed a few months before, the number of arbitrary arrests of civilians by the military and the police has been increasing. The situation is very worrying and this climate of violence throughout the province risks ending up in another diabolical spiral. Since the end of May, the Indonesian military have arrested or killed almost two thousand people suspected of belonging to the GAM rebel group, a movement that demands autonomy for Aceh. Faced with this spiral of violence, we call on the Indonesian Government and the pro-independence movement to resume negotiations in order to implement the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. The populations that are at risk must be protected and Indonesia must quickly re-establish genuine dialogue so as to put an end to this unnecessary fighting, which leads to serious injustices and paves the way for the death of innocent people and poverty. In Aceh, where the security forces have for many years been present in large numbers and have been murdering citizens with complete impunity, the climate is getting worse every day and is further reducing the confidence of the province’s inhabitants. The Indonesian Government’s passive attitude to the thousands of violations reported in Aceh, the majority of which have been committed by its own security forces as part of the anti-insurrectionist operations in recent years, has fuelled the people’s resentment and created conditions likely to strengthen violent opposition. The hope of lasting peace in Aceh will never be fulfilled unless steps are taken to protect the civilian population from the human rights violations. Today, we call on the Indonesian authorities, but also the ASEAN countries, the Council and the Commission to ensure that Jakarta makes every effort to defuse the situation in the region and that the flagrant human rights violations are strongly condemned. Finally, we believe that the GAM will also have to cooperate in any investigation carried out into the human rights infringements attributed to its members.

Political group: ELDR
I regret that the Commissioner has once again become involved in an imaginative and, in this case, passionate intervention. I would like to remind all of you that Spain is about to hold elections, and in fact there are just 25 days left before the elections. It should be of comfort to the Commissioner that these elections will take place in 25 days time, since after that he will probably not have to deal with this type of question again. I do believe it is important to say that Andalusia is going to receive 50% more within the Community support framework and that Spain also holds the record for the use of the Structural Funds, which means that the distribution is based strictly on the implementing regulations and is decentralised by means of the regional development plans and different Community support frameworks. Lastly I would like to ask the Commissioner a specific question: Do you consider it necessary to change the implementing regulations for the Structural Funds or do you consider the current distribution criteria to be acceptable?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we cannot and must not miss this opportunity to encourage the people of Guinea to take the democratic path or the opportunity it represents for its youth, since, in an environment of increasing poverty and inequality, the failure of democracy leads to a spiral of violence and repression, which in turn ends in an armed conflict which is often promoted from outside. The European Union must, through all possible channels, demand that the Government of Equatorial Guinea free all political prisoners and end the coercion suffered by the democratic forces, in order to guarantee that the coming municipal elections bring hope to the people of Guinea and lead to fruitful relations between Guinea and the European Union. Iran (press code)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I wish to announce that we supported the resolution adopted on the IGC, and we take this as an appeal to the Irish presidency to get moving. This is not an issue on which we can afford to wait indefinitely. The Intergovernmental Conference needs to be kicked back into life. We have focused on the Irish presidency because the ball is currently in its court. But we will be coming back to this in the New Year and looking very carefully at what progress is being made. If there is, in the view of Parliament – and certainly in the view of my group – insufficient progress, we will look towards adopting a further resolution, one which will spell out possible initiatives to be taken by this Parliament in conjunction with national parliaments, and also consequences for our own parliamentary business, because we cannot continue with business-as-usual. The IGC needs to come to a conclusion. We need the European Constitution; we cannot let it be kicked into the long grass for months and years ahead. Business-as-usual cannot go on indefinitely: we must bring this issue to a solution.

Political group: PSE
I would thank you very much for your answer. Through the Italian Prime Minister, the Italian Presidency has today emphasised the importance of close cooperation with the United States, constituting a North Atlantic alliance on a variety of global issues. In what way can the European Union use the good relationship between the Italian Prime Minister, that is to say the new President of the European Union, and the US President to promote joint action by the United States and the European Union to bring about a ban on cloning within the UN system?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, where the present report is concerned, we note that there is just about one hundred per cent agreement in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. I should like, however, to point out a number of things. We note that women’s and children’s rights form an indispensable and inseparable dimension of human rights generally. Economic independence for women is a necessity if it is to be possible to achieve true equality. Women both within and outside the European Union are especially vulnerable to poverty. The 1995 action platform expressly mentions the freedom to take personal responsibility in questions affecting sexuality, as well as full respect for the individual’s integrity and equality in relations between women and men and in issues affecting sexual relations and reproduction. These are points which religious fundamentalists of different kinds now refuse to accept. The pro-life movement and so-called family protection groups, the Vatican and Muslim fundamentalists are very active and have been so in a very well organised way during the conferences which, in the course of recent months, have been held in, among other places, New York. They are thereby sabotaging constructive dialogue between governments and voluntary organisations. I should like to appeal to this Parliament’s large Christian Democratic group to distance themselves from this sabotage of the United Nations’ follow-up conference. I would also urge the governments of the Member States and the delegation from the European Parliament which is to go to New York in a few weeks’ time to do all they can to bring about the final document from the Beijing + 5 Conference which is, in fact, threatened by these groups. It is a question of producing a final document containing, still intact, the twelve points in the action plan which have been approved. In that way, we can all of us work to advance women’s rights and equality, and not to set them back.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we , but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, Europe is continuing to pay for a well-established failing in its conflict prevention policies: we are slow, predictable and not sufficiently authoritative. I therefore feel that one of the strong points of Mr Lagendijk’s report is that it sees the point at which a political institution such as Europe acquires legitimacy in terms of conflict prevention rather than military force, and it gains legitimacy in the knowledge, not least, that sustainable, equitable peace must be pursued through politics, certainly not through military force. We particularly welcome the way Mr Lagendijk’s report sees conflict prevention as a result of Europe’s social policies rather than just the effect of good judicial cooperation, although we must never renounce that. Social policies mean that prevention, the ability to predict, to prevent and to resolve conflicts before they happen must be part of all European Union policies, as has already been pointed out by other Members, and these policies must provide for an investment in terms of both financing and human resources. In this sense, we feel that the number of European Union delegations to other countries is completely inadequate to meet the requirements of the prevention policy. As Mr Lagendijk said, we must avoid development cooperation becoming conflict cooperation, and we must therefore be particularly careful, rigorous and rational in developing all our economic policies. Lastly, I share your criticism of the Council and the Commission for not having accepted in the last six years – and six years is an extremely long time in which countless conflicts occur – the proposal put forward by Parliament at that time to institute a European civil peace corps. We must prevent conflict, and in order to prevent conflict it is often necessary to take risks, and that is what we are asking the Council, the Commission and Parliament to do.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think that we are voting now. We have had an opportunity to debate, and I have had close contact with the shadow rapporteurs and the groups that have been interested in contact.

Political group: ELDR