GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have asked for the floor because I feel that not only does Mrs Korhola deserve to be congratulated on her excellent work, but we should also be promoting something more fundamental than the mere fact of environmental information. I believe that what we are debating is a far-reaching study. This is because it affects citizens’ law and the development of European citizens’ rights, over and above States, regions and any other party with an interest in wielding power. Exercising power by controlling information is as old as the hills. We must therefore ensure that control of information is not taken over by those in power and that the citizens have the right to be informed. Secondly, I believe that where the environment is concerned, one of the main problems stems from the fact that as a consequence of the principle of subsidiarity environmental protection is solely in the hands of the citizens. The citizens need to be informed and the Commission must make a particular point of doing so in areas where subsidiarity applies. That will enable the citizens to defend their own rights and insist that their governments take the necessary action. The Commission must therefore make a great effort to obtain the relevant information for areas where subsidiarity applies. It must also strive to lay down the ground rules for information and insist that all countries be obliged to provide information at both State and regional level, regardless of how they conduct their policy. Recent disasters are making it clear that the citizen increasingly has the right to manage the risks he is exposed to. He is also entitled to express his views, and request and demand commitments to safeguard his own interests in areas such as health. Consequently, in the interests of proper application of the principle of subsidiarity and its implementation we should not place power out of the citizens’ reach. Information is every citizen’s right. He needs to fully understand the relevant system, including any weaknesses. He will then be in a position to support it, make decisions pertaining to its finance and many other things.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have to say that I am not particularly interested in entering into a debate on this wall of shame at the International Court of Justice. Clearly, this barrier is a moral outrage and a political mistake. I fear, however, we are running the risk of putting up a different kind of barrier. I feel we are creating a smokescreen by spending our time on this matter instead of exerting the pressure, force and political will required to really push the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward. This notorious barrier certainly does hinder the creation of a Palestinian state. Nevertheless, the existence of the settlements also makes the establishment of a viable state impossible. Further, the absence of any political will to act appropriately represents a far greater impediment to the creation of such a state. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that a number of other significant smokescreens are also emerging. There is, for example, the recent announcement made by the Bush administration that it is preparing a grand plan to restructure the Arab-Islamic world and to bring it under the umbrella of Western security. Now it seems that extreme right-wingers in the US are referring to a great restructured Middle East as their main foreign policy priority. This, they say, will facilitate the ending of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To be frank, I cannot take seriously a plan claiming to bring about democracy and prosperity from Morocco to Pakistan overnight. Rather, I think this plan is another attempt to distract public opinion in the run up to the November presidential elections. This same public opinion has now realised that President Bush’s electoral imperatives take priority over the supposed intentions to advance the Middle East peace process. Furthermore, this supposed grand plan for the Middle East could make the Israel-Palestinian conflict appear less central. There seems to be a suggestion that the European Union be involved in the plan. It should be remembered that the European Union is a key player in the Barcelona process. This process will not succeed, at least not fully, until there is an end to the confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis. The other smokescreen is the one currently being created by Prime Minister Sharon. The latter is forever announcing painful concessions he never implements. He has proved unable to remove the illegal settlements in the West Bank. I have in mind the small number of caravans scattered across a few hills on the West Bank. He is now saying that the Gaza townships will be abandoned. I am quite prepared to give Prime Minister Sharon the benefit of the doubt for the time being. It is to be hoped, however, that this grand plan does not turn out to involve relocating the Gaza settlers in the West Bank enclaves. The latter constitute the real impediment to the viability of the Palestinian State the Quartet hopes will be established.

Political group: PSE
At the end of each legislative period, rapporteurs try to bring the negotiations with the Council to an end promptly, so that, following the elections, there is no need for another discussion with uncertain outcome. Before a public debate becomes possible, serious differences of opinion have already been cleared out of the way. In this case, industry is pleased that, thanks to the energy displayed by the Green rapporteur, CO2 emission allowance trading can start as early as 2005 instead of 2008. That is in keeping with the Liberal view that a reduction in emission is too expensive at home and it is therefore preferable for this to be done in countries where this is more cost-effective. The expected advantages are that at world level, results are achieved more quickly and that in their industrialisation processes, developing countries are encouraged to make use of environmental technology developed in Europe straight away. This is traded off against the fact that no measures are taken at home, countries in eastern Europe sell their rights in order to reconstruct their industries and countries in the developing world may not be able to start the industrialisation process for a long while yet. However, on a positive note, at least 50% of reduction must be achieved within the EU. The advantage of this proposal is that production forests, which are intended to be felled or which can burn down, can no longer be fraudulently entered in accounts as carbon pits for taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converting it into oxygen.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I believe, in fact, that it is more by luck than skill that there have not so far been any disasters due to the absence of the rules mentioned by the previous speakers. When we deal with the positive side of the single market and create a common internal market, we must also deal with the darker side, namely bankruptcies. I consider that we are experiencing an historic moment in this regard. I congratulate the rapporteur for having so quickly progressed further with his report. I am, moreover, proud that my own country has been involved in tabling this regulation which we now hope will swiftly be adopted by the Council. I think it is an important step we are taking, even if each of the national systems is not especially influenced by it. To the rapporteur’s regret, I must unfortunately point out that our Group cannot support Amendment No 3 because we consider that it restricts creditors’ legal position and impairs their legal protection. With regard to Amendment No 6, we tabled a similar amendment in the negotiations in committee. I am a little surprised that you in the Group of the did not support it then. We shall now support your Amendment No 6, but I wonder why you did not support our own amendment in committee. I also hope that we produce some insight in this context and that we shall be able to compare which procedures are quickest and best in the various countries.

Political group: ELDR
Recently a TV crew from Romania asked me, was I seriously suggesting that the condition of children’s institutions in Romania could jeopardise their application for membership of the EU. These young journalists were totally amazed at the deep concerns many of us have about all aspects of childcare in Romania. Our concerns about trafficking in children as the world was beating a path to their door in search of children became obscured between the desperation of parents looking for children to adopt and the clear indications that many of those who were facilitating commercial trafficking in children became part of the politics of Romania, and indeed those countries whose nationals were pressurising for open adoption, notably the USA. Baroness Nicholson has, in her excellent report, highlighted these issues and by her deep concern has finally alerted the Romanian Authorities, and her report will hopefully result in the radical changes required to protect children.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, 2004 will be the year of the European constitution. Despite initial scepticism, the Convention has managed to strike an admirable compromise. The constitution will certainly contain things that we in this House would have preferred differently. However, the result still deserves our support. First of all, I should like to express my surprise at the fact that some, including the Dutch Government, argue in favour of including God – Christianity – in the European constitution. If this were done, where would that leave the separation of state and religion, on which modern democracy – the very foundation of our united Europe – is based? Is God not above the law? How can Liberal government parties endorse this? Secondly, we indicated in the resolution that all Member States should hold referendums on the constitution, where possible, according to the constitution, on the day of the European elections. I myself am a great supporter of a referendum. I think that an important decision about the European constitution cannot be left to Heads of Government alone. Such a referendum is likely to take place in my country, the Netherlands, and I am delighted at this, especially now that it transpires that more than 80% of the Dutch population intend to vote. Unfortunately, the Dutch Government appears very divided about the referendum and lacks a clear European profile. That does nothing to help our citizens; on the contrary, it puts them at a distance. Europe achieves too little, is insufficiently transparent, has to contend with a democratic deficit and sometimes interferes in matters that can be dealt with nearer to the citizen. These are precisely the areas that we intend to improve by means of this constitution, which allows the European Union to function more effectively and more democratically and which, moreover, gives the EU a social and political dimension, and this is why we ask for the support of our citizens in the referendum. Finally, I urge the Heads of Government, and certainly also the Dutch Prime Minister, not to engage in backroom analyses where the constitution is concerned. Basic values, social fundamental rights and more democracy must be defended and not weakened by alleged national interests, which would send us back to this cursed backroom in Nice, where the government produced something of little consequence. I should like to thank both rapporteurs. Let us give Europe back to the citizens.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, as other Members have said, there is indeed a problem with air services to Strasbourg. I should, however, like to remind those members that are such devotees of free competition, that since we deregulated airlines, it is no longer possible to subsidise them and to class services to and from Strasbourg as public service operations, and hence, many invitations to tender have failed to bear fruit because no airline has been prepared to offer flights which are considered to be unprofitable.

Political group: PSE
I am slightly disappointed with the response from the Commissioner. While I am fully in support of strong, effective and costed legislation to force improvements in environmental standards governing water quality and other matters, and of the proper policing of such legislation, I would also like to see this stick approach complemented by, as it were, a degree of carrot. In my own region – and particularly in Cornwall, which is an Objective 1 area – we have very many small and medium enterprises that will find it most difficult to comply with this legislation. I would like to see some financial incentives or rewards introduced to enable them to stop polluting water. If we merely have, if you like, the stick approach and no carrots, then I am afraid we are going to find it more difficult to reach these standards and, at the same time, increase suffering in some of the very small enterprises in the UK county hardest hit by job losses, when we are actually spending considerable sums of money trying to create jobs there.

Political group: PSE
I would like to thank the Commissioner for that exhaustive answer. I think that the European Union is in a unique position when it comes to export subsidies. The EU is in a class of its own as the biggest subsidising power on a global basis. My question concerns what the plans look like for the years ahead. Are there any plans for the next two, three or four years to further reduce the EUR 5 billion granted as export subsidies in the past year?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I rise on the same point of order as my colleague, Mr Sturdy. It is essential that this Parliament should show by example and precept that it follows the same standards that it imposes upon everybody else. It imposes standards on beef in Britain and cheese in France and it must follow the same example in relation to its own conduct. I am perfectly prepared, in an extreme situation, to die for my country and my family. I am not prepared to die from legionnaire's disease because I have to sit in Strasbourg in June. Therefore we should do something about it now and not just talk about it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the international protest against the anti-terrorist, or dividing, wall is starting to bear fruit. It appears that Israel will be shortening the wall, or partition, so that it does not cut as much into Palestinian territory. In that way, Mr Sharon is trying to turn the international tide that is opposed to his policy, but he will try to use the dismantling of the colonies in Gaza as compensation for the colonies within the wall on the West Bank. In that way, he can retain the largest settlements there after all and abandon the problematic Gaza Strip. He will thus once again foster goodwill in Washington and can quietly carry on with the annexation of the Palestinian territory, even though he thereby undermines the roadmap and makes his own plan the only viable one. He does not recognise the Green Line. This is unacceptable to the United Nations and, as Kofi Annan stated in November, this is very counterproductive for peace. Europe, too, should find this unacceptable, and I regret the Council’s attitude. A viable Palestinian state needs the agricultural land and the water sources, which are now being closed off. We must therefore maintain our international protest against the wall. Besides, Israel has the right to look for protection against terrorism behind the Green Line, but a new iron curtain will provide no answers in the long run. Where I come from, anyone who builds a wall has to build it on their own land; if not, the neighbour will call in the justice of the peace. This will shortly also happen in The Hague, where the International Court of Justice will rule on this wall’s legitimacy. Mr Sharon is now trying to create a smoke screen to mislead the world and make people forget the Geneva peace initiative. The question is now whether the International Court of Justice can act as justice of the peace in this case. In any event, the problem has now attracted much attention worldwide, and international pressure is being brought to bear – even in Israel, where the Supreme Court is now looking into the case. I hope that they will take the right decision.

Political group: PSE
Although I do not reject the praiseworthy intention of strengthening, clarifying and deepening the European Union and of simplifying the texts so as to bring its workings closer to the citizens, I did not vote in favour of this motion for a resolution. The resolution is essentially like a ‘Pandora’s Box’, as the text does not make it formally clear what purpose it serves or where the real need or urgency for a European Constitution lies. By its very nature a Constitution may, in the form in which it is sometimes contradictorily put forward for Europe, both serve as a way to ‘civilise’ the Union, on the basis of democracy and citizenship, and also be the instrument for a ‘clarification’ of competences, a chalk circle which formally and definitively constrains the Union and its bodies to very particular and specific competences. The constitutionalisation of the Treaties may either bring about the development of the Union and uphold its political competences, or in contrast it may be no more than an enshrined formalisation of the principle of subsidiarity. Strangely, many MEPs and even Prime Minister Blair support a European Constitution. Despite the clarity of Mário Soares’s speech, in which he interpreted this report in its deep European sense, without concessions to easy solutions through highly risky referendums, for which there is no tradition in many Member States, it remains simply an unsullied interpretation by a European of conviction who has made his mark on history. Unfortunately, the text does not match the idea and desire of Portugal’s leading European. This discrepancy, the blame for which lies entirely with the report’s author for not being clear and precise, is at the root of my unease with the text and why I find it politically impossible to vote for it. I would even have voted against it, but this would have been an over-radical way of judging a text as important as this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whoever wants to join the EU must meet the Copenhagen criteria and abolish the death penalty. Including Turkey. Despite frequent promises by the Turkish Government, human rights violations continue there. I should like to list a few examples. The Kurdistan Democratic Party has been exposed to attack since 20 February. Three Kurdish mayors belonging to HADEP were arrested recently and then released but are not allowed to leave Turkey. Then the former and present leaders of HAP, Murat Bozlak and Ahmet Turan Demir, were sentenced to three years and nine months in prison together with 18 other members of HADEP. It was maintained that HADEP was supporting and helping the PKK which has opted for peace rather than war. Akin Birdal has started serving the rest of his sentence. Thousands of Turkish troops marched into northern Iraq at the beginning of April. More than 50 000 soldiers are stationed on the border in order to fight the PKK, despite its call for peace. Why are arms being delivered to Turkey? More than 300 000 people gathered for the Navruz festival in Diyarbakir under the banner “Peace, Brotherliness and Democracy”. Having been there, my personal impression is that the people are longing for peace and democracy. The leader of the ANAP, Mr Mesut Jilmaz, said at an event in Diyarbakir, that the way to the EU was via Diyarbakir. I therefore call on the Turkish Government to respect human rights and to find a political solution to the Kurdish question. Because the only way into Europe is via the Copenhagen criteria. It will be the task of the European Commission and the Council to strengthen their commitment here. At the moment, the most important task is to advance the democratisation of Turkey, which is why I call on everyone to unite without hesitation and to reinforce democracy and peace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, knowing how important and irreplaceable this 59th session of the Commission on Human Rights is, we must not allow its work, its functions and its presidency to be weakened. Who other than the Commission on the rights of men, women, children, minorities, etc. could demand reports on countries that imprison people for crimes that they have not committed? I am thinking for example of Mr Bandajevski, whose health is deteriorating in prison in Belarus; I am thinking of Lemine Ould Cheikh Melaïnine who is wasting away in a Mauritanian jail. We must give all of our support to the proper functioning of this Commission so that it can fully play its role. For this we need to ensure that an appropriate amount of speaking time is granted to the Commission rapporteurs and humanitarian NGOs who, on the ground, are often the real witnesses and representatives of those without a voice. The debate is also the opportunity to highlight the rights of indigenous peoples as, when too many States are violently breaching fundamental rights, what can be said about the rights of indigenous peoples in the absence of practically any information about their definition or their legal guarantees? We must strongly support the UN’s initiative to have a permanent forum on these issues in order to raise awareness and promote the cause of indigenous peoples. We must also do everything we can to ensure the maintenance of the working group, which is the only one of its kind dealing with indigenous peoples' issues. Also, ladies and gentlemen, it would be to the European Parliament’s credit if it, for its part, were to set up the European Parliament indigenous peoples' delegation that was decided upon when a resolution was adopted in 1992.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I was half expecting your response as we are well aware that education is the responsibility of the Member States. The reason I asked this question, however, is precisely because it is really urgent. You all know that people everywhere are talking of nothing but sustainable development, without knowing exactly what this term means. We must therefore take action, and I think it would be useful if, at Council and European Union level, an initiative was taken precisely so that we could envisage every pupil, every high school student perhaps, being able to have a lesson on ‘sustainable development and the environment’ within the European Union. Although it is not the responsibility of the Member States, I believe there have been other requests on the history of the European Union. I think this is urgent, as we have been talking about the environment and environmental education for thirty years, and ultimately, this subject is always the responsibility of the Member States or the voluntary sector. I think it is time, and the matter is urgent now, to implement provisions and practical initiatives.

Political group: Verts-ALE