GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many of you have heard of Ingrid Betancourt, representative of Colombia’s Green Party, whose relatives have visited this House on several occasions. It is now a year and a half since she was kidnapped by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The position of the family and the Colombian Green Party, as well as the European Parliament’s Group of the , has been to encourage a humanitarian exchange, whilst criticising FARC and saying that it is unacceptable to propose a political exchange. Yesterday, the Colombian press received a cassette containing a threefold message from Ingrid Betancourt: firstly, if you want to mount a military operation in order to set me free then go ahead, but be careful! Secondly, humanitarian exchanges can only take place between armies and thirdly, as far as we are concerned – we, the politicians who have been kidnapped – only FARC can give us an unconditional release. I believe that this message, surprising as it is, can be explained both by the extreme courage of Ingrid Betancourt on the one hand, who does not hesitate to take risks in the name of her political principles and, on the other, by FARC’s desire to show that they are prepared to allow their prisoner to appeal to public opinion, even if only to say ‘attack us!’ What I would ask, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, is that we give firm support to Ingrid Betancourt’s third proposal, which is to clearly ask FARC to release all their political prisoners unilaterally, because it is unacceptable to take negotiators or representatives of the people hostage.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the news arriving this morning from New York that they are thinking of extending the ultimatum makes us continue to hope that the Iraqi crisis may be resolved without taking up arms. The willingness of the United States and the United Kingdom to extend the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein opens up a new glimmer of hope for peace. These are still the days of politics and diplomacy, and every attempt must be made to avert war: a goal that it is not impossible to achieve. Above all – and here I agree with Mr Poettering – it is up to Saddam Hussein to destroy the banned weapons without hesitation and without pretence; it is up to Saddam Hussein to collaborate with the UN inspectors without wasting time; and the Iraqi dictator still has the option of leaving his country, to release it from an illiberal regime and restore it to democracy: a choice invoked by many of the Members sitting in this House too. Europe must also make its loud voice heard, however, by avoiding divisions and conflict. The document adopted on 17 February must be the starting point for action by the Council and the Commission, and it is the primary duty of all the political groups represented in Parliament to act to prevent the credibility of the United Nations being eroded away. European politics and diplomacy must move to prevent that institution, with which we all identify, from emerging from the international crisis deprived of its role as the protector of the international rule of law, and we must also act to prevent another multilateral body, the Atlantic Alliance, from losing its credibility. We therefore have the duty, Mr President, of working to preserve the unity of Europe; there must be a huge effort from everybody to overcome the divisions that have been revealed this week: a weak and divided Europe does not serve the cause of peace. We must learn from these difficulties so that Europe can, once again, play a leading role on the international stage. We must not, however, Mr President, forget the relationship and shared values that link us to the United States of America – a country deeply scarred by the attacks of 11 September, attacks that also scarred every one of us, every European – and we must not allow Washington to be left alone. This is because every act of international diplomacy these days can only be aimed at building a solution to the Iraqi crisis. The European Union and the United States must find joint initiatives within the framework of the international order.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I note the proposal and if the report on terrorism is not moved by this proposal, then I would have nothing against moving it. Mr Schmid has done an excellent piece of work with his report on Echelon and it is something which must be voted on by the whole House as soon as possible. However, I tend to the view expressed by Mr Vitorino that one has heard of both God and Echelon but one cannot be sure that either of them exists. I also take the view, which I believe, Madam President, is sustained and supported by your words at the beginning of today's sitting, that it is extremely important that we debate and vote on the issue of terrorism – which is a very real one – as soon as possible this week. Should Mr Barón Crespo's proposal not have the effect of moving the report on terrorism then I would be very happy to support it.

Political group: ELDR
Even if we accept that the objectives of reducing the fishing fleet have not in fact been achieved, which does not apply in Greece, for example, where we have had both a reduction in the fleet and a reduction in fisheries for the benefit of imports and aquaculture, we have no reason to regret the failure of the multi-annual guidance programmes. That is because these programmes started the restrictions on small- and medium-sized fisheries production, as in Greece, resulting in a reduction in fisheries, the deterioration in the fisheries balance of trade and unfortunate repercussions for the populations of the shore areas. We do not disagree with controls on the fishing capacity of the fleet; however, we do not agree that they should be carried out by the common fisheries policy as expressed under the multi-annual guidance programmes. On the contrary, we feel that the necessary arrangements should be made on the responsibility of each Member State, taking compliance measures in accordance with the actual scientific data of other agencies, such as the FAO, in relation to the state of fish stocks and so on. Under no circumstances do we agree to the cession of this responsibility to supranational bodies such as the ΕU, because its policy tends to further strengthen big business in the fisheries sector also, striking small- and medium-sized fishing enterprises with withdrawals and the scrapping of vessels, measures in favour of aquaculture and so on.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am in favour of a speedy EU enlargement by the twelve countries with which negotiations are now under way. In my opinion, the Commission's assessment that ten of those countries will meet the prescribed criteria by 2004 is doubtful. It is because the resolution supports this assessment that I cannot endorse it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as the last speaker, I too should like to congratulate Mr Duhamel on his excellent work and Mr Gil-Robles on his work. We have had an in-depth debate on two issues which, although different, converge at one point. And both reports basically deal with the manner in which the European process is to continue; the manner in which the framework and the vision of Europe are to be shaped still further. Mr Gil-Robles’ proposals on reinforced cooperation are, on balance, positive. At the same time, Mr Duhamel’s proposals for a constitutional charter for the European Constitution, a constitution of which we are in dire need, are also fundamental. And now a word to the President-in-Office, Minister Moscovici. The European Parliament has tabled important proposals. Now what we need is for the summit in Nice to demonstrate the political will to ensure that the Nice Treaty combines these proposals, and other proposals formulated on other occasions, into an integrated institutional framework which allows the European process to advance properly and the European Union to welcome the new Member States in a positive and sound manner.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if the rapporteur will allow me I will start by saying where I agree with her and – if the rapporteur will forgive me – that may not take long. Of course, colleagues and I share her ideals for a better standard of living for all the peoples of Europe, for a better quality of life and for promotion of social inclusion. Where I part company is on her proposals or – as Stephen Hughes said – her prescriptions to secure that end, because her proposals will lead us further away from those ideals rather than towards achievement. Various speakers have talked about the Lisbon Summit today. That was hailed six months ago as a very important summit. Mention was made there of a new direction for Europe: moving away from the social regulation agenda of the 1980s towards enterprise, innovation, competition and employment. However, the report says something slightly different: whereas Lisbon calls for a reform of the social model, it calls for reinforcement; whereas Lisbon calls for liberation of enterprise and more flexibility, the report proposes four new or amended directives and a number of legislative initiatives. The report sets out the standard Socialist solution throughout the ages of legislation, legislation, legislation. What we need to pursue our common goals is not more regulation, but less. We do not want more burdening of business, we want less. We do not want more unemployment, we want less. The original Commission proposal was much better left unamended – congratulations Commissioner. I propose that we leave it unamended and we reject the report, otherwise we will give the clearest possible signal that Parliament is continuing to pursue the old agenda. Surely it is time to move on.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after Madrid, the threat of a clash between the Western and Islamic worlds is drawing nearer. Will we simply let this happen? Both in Israel and among the Palestinians, there are forces pursuing mutual destruction. After all, what else can a so-called military solution amount to? Sheikh Yassin did not want peace on the basis of negotiations, but does Sharon? On several occasions, Sharon provoked Palestinian violence, most recently with the military occupation of Palestine, the erection of the wall and the assassination of Yassin. This violence was continuously breeding more violence. It is a source of frustration, so much so that the export of the conflict to other areas is moving ever closer and is becoming a threat to world peace and to safety in our cities. That is why we are asking you to shift your peace efforts up a gear, to cancel the association agreement and not to delay starting the debate on an international peace force in Israel. Only the right to self-determination can really provide a peaceful outcome.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am pleased that Commissioner de Palacio is here, because this will perhaps be of interest to her. I should like to draw attention to a series of serious accidents involving lorries that have occurred in Belgium on the E17, that is, the motorway from Antwerp to Lille, in recent weeks. The cause is always those lorries using cruise control, which is a kind of autopilot enabling drivers to drive without keeping their feet on the pedals. Careless lorry drivers are driving into traffic queues because their reactions are too slow. The balance sheet for the last 7 weeks shows 6 dead and 13 seriously injured, indicating that this is very bad technology. Problems and accidents involving cruise control can be seen all over Europe. The relevant directive on technical regulations for heavy goods vehicles must be amended to contain a provision banning this. Belgium wants to ban cruise control on its territory and should be given the chance to do so. I think that the Commissioner should take the necessary steps.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I would like to thank the coordinators of all Groups in the Committee on Budgets for the fact that this compromise has been achieved. I must acknowledge the generous nature of the general rapporteur, who was himself of another opinion. That is understandable, and I also know that the Committee chairman was in favour of another view, but we should pay tribute to the hard work of all the representatives of the Committee on Budgets here. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development supports this view.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is an historic day and an historic debate because, after 17 years of war in Sri Lanka, the European Parliament for the first time is actually debating how to bring peace to this war-torn island. In 1948, when Sri Lanka obtained independence, it was one of the most prosperous countries in South Asia. In 1952, Lee Kuan Yew, the newly elected Prime Minister of Singapore, said: “My ambition is to make Singapore emulate Sri Lanka in prosperity, education and standard of living”. Forty-eight years later, that beautiful island of Sri Lanka has been smashed by a terrorist group now recognised as the most powerful terrorist organisation in the world. There are four million Tamils in Sri Lanka and there are 15 million Sinhalese. One million Tamils live in the north; the other three million live in peace in the south with the Sinhalese. They hold high office in Colombo, the present foreign minister is Tamil, the country’s leading businessmen are Tamil, so are judges, doctors, lawyers and cabinet ministers – the list goes on. Yet this pointless war also carries on, to serve the single purpose of a terrorist leader pursuing his own ambition. The resolution states how many people he has killed. The LTTE has to be stopped. I ask Member States to proscribe this terrorist organisation and to help build peace and stability in Sri Lanka and strongly support the initiative currently being taken by the Norwegian and Indian governments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also wish to welcome the President-in-Office. It is certainly nice to see the professionals back in charge of the shop. The real challenge for this presidency, of course, is to deliver enlargement, and the difficulties that remain should not be underestimated. The new countries must be pressured by this presidency to continue the reforms necessary for their successful integration into the Union. We must continue our clear commitment to Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey to ensure that the enlargement process proceeds. Enlargement is the challenge of the decade. It is not just a question of delivering enlargement, but also of making it work. Enlargement could make or break the European Union. Frankly, without a reform of our decision-making structures, enlargement will break the Union – it is as simple as that. Therefore, we must have a constitutional treaty. I fear that many colleagues here today have underestimated the vested interests there are in some governments not to have an agreement, at least for the time being. How else do you explain voting arrangements that do not come into effect until 2009 causing the collapse of the IGC? It defies belief that was the only reason. The real tragedy of this debacle is that it is distracting us from even more important work. The Constitution is about how we do things, when our attention should be focused on what we do. Key to that is the Lisbon process, which is running out of steam, hamstrung as it is by a surfeit of generalities, a lack of specific targets, and by the Member States' failure to implement what they have agreed to. In particular, this presidency must take forward the report by Wim Kok. We must have more and better jobs; we must make work pay; we must have a more dynamic social model aimed at getting more people into work – particularly those traditionally excluded; we must avoid having a two-tier workforce and we need a more productive workforce. To do this we have to set every government clear targets to be achieved. The new Member States are used to annual scrutiny. We have to extend that discipline to the existing states. Let us do more to put countries on the spot. My question to the President-in-Office is very specific: how do you intend to take forward Wim Kok's very important report? Because, more than anything else, if you deliver on more jobs you will earn the eternal gratitude of our voters.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, every spring I have been critical of the fact that we are moving further and further away from the Lisbon objectives, rather than getting closer to them. My criticisms are directed not so much at the Council – least of all the country that holds the Presidency, Greece – or the Commission. The main focus of my criticism must be the nation states: the keys to Europe’s development are in their hands. I am quoting a greater voice than my own: The European Round Table of Industrialists, expressing its concern and furthermore issuing a word of warning: The commitment made in Lisbon has yet to be implemented. Many fine words have been spoken but Europe has hardly begun to resolve its pension time-bomb, implement a radical improvement in its infrastructures, complete the liberalisation of energy, financial and other markets, adopt enhanced corporate governance and takeover codes to restore investor confidence and enact all those long-touted structural reforms necessary to create the overall framework to achieve the Lisbon objective. Ja sitten varoituksen sana (a word of warning): It is not that Europe's major industrial companies will stop growing. In the absence of attractive framework conditions and, given slow market growth, more and more companies will increasingly prefer to grow outside the EU by investing and developing R[amp]D laboratories and new facilities in the US and Asia. This is already happening. Too many key reforms for Lisbon are still waiting to be approved and implemented. Firms cannot be successful in business if the system is against them. These are the words of their chairman Gerhard Cromme, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Thyssen Krupp. One can only concur with these words and hope that the nation states will actually start to implement these objectives from this point on.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, fishing exploits natural resources which are, admittedly, renewable, but they are also fragile and easily destroyed. Because for centuries catching methods were of limited effectiveness, the idea arose that stocks were inexhaustible. This feeling still exists in some reactions against conservation policies. Nevertheless, in the face of a public opinion that cares about protecting nature and of the economic risks created by the collapse of some fish species, fishermen are realising that they must be marine life’s allies and not its enemies. It is in this context that any reform of fisheries policy must be seen, whether it is a wide-ranging reform or one designed to address specific situations, such as this one. The aim of the legislation currently under consideration, which is the subject of the excellent Stihler report, is to prevent the disaster that the extinction of fish as popular as cod and hake would represent. We can discuss the relative values of the recommended measures and the effectiveness of the method of implementing them; we can discuss the accuracy of the scientific data on which this method is based, but what cannot be underestimated is the danger threatening cod population units and, on a smaller scale, those for hake as well as the need to turn the situation around and to recover these population units. In our debates on fisheries, we have frequently come up against the uncertainty and the unreliability of scientific data. This is the justification for the Committee on Fisheries’ decision to make its proposals for hake more flexible. I wonder whether this is a step in the right direction. I have my doubts. For these reasons, I call on the Commission to set up a system of scientific and technically credible research on which to base our decisions. It is crucial that the Commission does this. Cod, as everyone knows, is one of the cornerstones of Portuguese cuisine, but man does not live by haute cuisine alone. Cod fishing in Newfoundland is deeply ingrained in the minds of our fishermen and has left indelible traces in Portuguese literature. We must, therefore, fight to save the cod!

Political group: PSE
Smoking kills, the litany is becoming tiring. I will therefore take the liberty of irritating some people by repeating that smoking kills one in two smokers. There is no doubt that those who do not want to hear it are tired of it. According to the evidence, however, it does not scare people. The figures are most edifying: in Europe, 500 000 people are struck down by this plague each year. In Belgium, 33% of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are regular smokers and 51% have smoked. More serious is the fact that a quarter of women have tried their first cigarette before the age of 15. In short, young people are smoking more and more, and currently no anti-smoking policy is capable of curbing this infernal trend. This is why I welcome the adoption by the plenary of the report by Mr Maaten which, by taking up the major anti-smoking measures advocated by WHO, proposes measures to the Council that would be effective in preventing smoking and prevent teenagers from being conditioned by cigarette manufacturers. This is why I am also categorically opposed to the sale of chocolate cigarettes or liquorice pipes: mimicking a gesture at the age of 5 carries a risk of registering it and getting used to it. The risk is established, the symbol is disastrous, and all for a quite laughable market! - Keppelhoff-Wiechert report (A5-0373/2002)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to inform you that, on 29 September this year, Portugal also ratified this Treaty unanimously.

Political group: PSE