GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner. You will understand that this is a matter that concerns us greatly and I also endorse, not only the indignation of Mrs Karamanlis because of the colloques singuliers organised at your bank and for which you as Commissioner are not always responsible, but I also endorse the content. Thanks to the international campaign, we were able to help Safya Hoesseini escape the stoning to which she was convicted even though she had been raped. She was, however, spared on procedural grounds and that means that the danger has certainly not gone away for Amina Lawal, who was granted an appeal on 19 August and whose sentence will probably be reconfirmed on 25 March. So you still have a little time, Commissioner. She was convicted in Katsina, one of the twelve northern regions where Sharia has come into force during the past 3 years. The death penalty, mutilation of women and flogging and the prevailing discrimination that accompanies these things have become common practices. This immediately renders the Constitution of Nigeria, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all other treaties that Nigeria has ratified dead letters. Presidential elections are being held in Nigeria in a couple of weeks. Rioting associated with the introduction of Sharia has already claimed a couple of thousand victims. Recently 220 people were killed in riots surrounding a beauty contest. The atmosphere is defined by economic crisis, unemployment, lack of security and widespread corruption. There is, alas, a huge danger of civil war in this enormous and densely populated African country. And here we are voting on another resolution. Commissioner, we did that on 15 February 2001, 15 November 2001, 11 April 2002, September 2002 and the ACP did that on 21 March 2001. So now we are going to vote on yet another resolution but, like Mrs Karamanou, I call on you to take real action, not only to save the life of this unfortunate woman, but also to save this densely populated African country from bloody conflicts that could create thousands of victims. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you for your answer, but my question was about the UN mandate. Mr Danielsson said nothing about this. Instead, we received a report on the fact that the EU will act in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter. But what about the mandate? Is a mandate needed? We must have a clear answer to this. Is it the case that the EU needs a UN mandate to intervene with its planned rapid reaction force, i.e. a positive decision from the UN? That is my question.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the procedure we are dealing with, the control of a programme throughout its execution, is normal in any Parliament. For this reason, I think that Mr Graça Moura’s report is very appropriate. I will say straight away that it deserves the approval of the Socialist Group. After the conciliation procedure, which has been mentioned previously, I expressed my annoyance with the Council given its intransigence in relation to accepting the financing we requested. This means that a programme that directly affects what we call the heart of Europe and which replaces other programmes that in the last few years have been most enthusiastically received by the most dynamic and youngest citizens of the European Union, has been allocated little more than EUR 33 million per year, an amount so small within the already modest Community budget that it disappoints those of us who see the European Union as something more than solely a vehicle for agricultural and structural spending. On this basis, we should remember two circumstances: the first is that the Culture 2000 programme exists alongside other resolutions from this Parliament which should produce guidelines for its implementation. I would cite as a particular example the Ruffolo report in which, amongst other things, the Commission is urged to set up a European observatory to monitor cultural cooperation or a three-year cultural cooperation plan. The Commission should therefore adopt a dynamic approach to Culture 2000, incorporating Parliament’s guidelines year after year. My second observation: the years remaining in this programme will coincide almost precisely with a working period, initiated at the Nice Council, which we have come to call a ‘constituent’ period. Whether there is a Constitution at the end of this or not, it is clear that the desire to increase the links between European communities and to awaken in each citizen a feeling of belonging to the Community cultural space is amongst the main objectives of the Convention. Is there a sufficient constituent basis amongst European communities? Is there any cultural identity between them? Many of us think that the constituent basis should be European culture, following Bruckmanns’s idea, that is to say, a common behaviour, a similar attitude to life, shared ideals, common artistic and cultural patrimony, and so on. Therefore, the political centre of gravity at this time should be more than just currency, more than the CFSP, even, but the linking of citizens to the Community idea and the search for and protection of a European culture. EUR 33 million is a very paltry sum to finance the only European cultural programme to be implemented during this period, but we can console ourselves, Mr President, with the thought that the conclusions of this report will contribute to the improvement of its functioning.

Political group: PSE
I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency wholeheartedly on the completion of a difficult task. After all, the summit was not only historic, but also primarily financial in character. These negotiations are always the most difficult, and the accession countries obviously have an excellent understanding of what the European Union is about. I do wonder, however, to what extent the financial arrangements are scuppering the political debate, specifically the arrangements with Poland and especially those relating to agricultural reforms. I also note that although no date has yet been set for negotiations with Turkey, the political criteria are to be evaluated in December 2004, so it is possible that negotiations may start without a national parliament, let alone the citizens of a Member State, becoming involved in such a decision at all. I object to this. I wonder whether this would not be an appropriate time to stop and consider where we are actually going with Europe and how far we want to go. Finally, I welcome Mr Verheugen’s promise to my party leader, Gerrit Zalm, that the November 2003 monitor report will state which exemption clauses could come into effect in countries that have not solved the relevant problems before May 2004, and which countries these are. I found this to be a positive, confidence-inspiring commitment; one which has unfortunately been paid far too little attention in the Council.

Political group: ELDR
The need to draw up public budgets through a gender perspective, with the ultimate aim of achieving genuine equality between men and women, stems from our belief that budgets are not neutral tools but in fact reflect the way power is distributed in society. Budgets are thus the outcome of political decisions, becoming key instruments for shaping models of socio-economic development and criteria for internal redistribution. Any equal opportunities policy must thus be reflected in the manner in which budgets are drawn up at various levels. As the rapporteur points out, in order to pursue the aim of fairness, governments and public administrations must deal with gender issues and reduce inequalities between men and women, taking due account of the fact that men and women play different roles in society and the economy and, as a result, that economic policies have a different impact on them. By voting in favour of this report, we are also underlining the importance of implementing the Beijing Action Platform and of drawing up provisions in the European Union’s own budget with a view to applying the proposals contained in Mrs Ghilardotti’s report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this debate is one more lesson that teaches us that the word peace means nothing if it is not accompanied by a political gesture, if it is not accompanied by the willingness to take the risk of making a decision. Peace is a dangerous word if the European Union is required to use it but is not able to follow it up with action. The action called for is political action, the full, direct assumption of political responsibility in the Middle East peace process. The European Union, Mr President, must be fully involved in the peace process as more than merely a trading partner or a major contributing country, or it will not be involved at all. I would remind you of the context which a number of other Members have already illustrated clearly: on the one hand, three United Nations resolutions on territories and displaced persons, disregarded by Israel even in terms of the affirmation of the principles they contain; and, on the other hand, a permanent state of emergency in the Palestinian territories: 120 thousand workers prevented from working, three billion dollars worth of damage already done, salaries only paid to government officials and administrators thanks to the intervention of European Union ready cash, half the civilian population under 18 years old killed. Mr President, I do not care which side fires the bullets: whether they are fired by Israelis, Iraquis or Turks, it is the duty of the European Union to condemn the killing of children. Lastly, Mr President, I am extremely concerned about apartheid, a word which should have no place in a discussion on the Middle East or Palestinian issues but which, I regret to say, applies to the situation we have to focus on. My impression is that a system exists in the region whereby an Arab life and an Israeli life have different values, particularly in terms of humiliation and submission to the situation. In the face of all this, it is impossible to preserve a neutral stance. We must uphold rules and principles, especially if the Bush government is going to prove incapable of guaranteeing the affirmation of these rules and principles or unwilling to do so. It is true – as Mr Solana said – that the negotiations are advancing, but, alongside the negotiations, the Israeli government is also proceeding with the establishment of fresh settlements. This is why we cannot fully share Mr Solana's optimism. Commissioner Patten tells us that we must look beyond the immediate crisis. We agree. Today our political duty is to achieve a peace agreement; tomorrow it will be to ensure that the agreement and international law are respected: the Middle East is relying on Europe, Mr President, because it has confidence in Europe. If we do not believe in Europe ourselves, then their confidence will be of no avail.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President, for handling matters in this way. Let me say this in all seriousness to all the staff and officials of this House: where your legitimate interests are at stake, we are on your side, but do not use this historic day, when the admission of ten countries to the European Union is at stake, as the occasion for enforcing interests that may or may not be legitimate. We have to do proper work today, we have to vote, and I ask you to discharge your great responsibility so that we may be able to do our duty. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to say first of all in this debate that we are expecting to see a proposal for a framework-directive very soon, which will guarantee the development of a genuine single market for supplementary pension funds under the second and third pillars, given that the first pillar, which covers all biometric risks, must remain the cornerstone of the European Union’s social protection system. This directive must in particular establish a framework to remove obstacles to the free choice of a pension fund, to the free movement of people, to the free provision of services and to charging double taxes. We recommend a solution based on the principle that contributions should be tax-deductible, and that supplementary invested income should be taxed in accordance with the income tax law in force in the country of residence. On the controversial issue of whether supplementary pension schemes should cover biometric risks, I wish to state that from the point of view of taxation, pension funds that do not cover these risks will not be discriminated against in relation to those that do. With regard to prudential regulation, this should not be disproportionate, so that the security of the fund is guaranteed. That covers the general framework. I am grateful to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for having included all the relevant conclusions of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities in the motion for a resolution. I now come to the report by Mr García-Margallo y Marfil. With regard to the action plan which seeks to deepen the internal financial services market, I would like to issue a warning about certain strategists who are attempting to hold the liberalisation of the financial services sector hostage, because the work that has been undertaken on the taxation of savings has not made the progress they would have wanted. As matters currently stand, we should remember that a single market for capital and financial services can function perfectly well without tax harmonisation. Faced with proposals that confuse ambition and reality, I wish to emphasise that establishing a European Committee for stock exchange operations is certainly not the number one priority and, as I have no speaking time left, Mr President, I will give an explanation of vote tomorrow to say the rest of what I still wanted to say, because as draftsperson of the Committee’s opinion and as a speaker on the second report, it is really impossible to say everything in two minutes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Chairman of the Committee of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Madam President, I am sorry that the Commissioner obviously had a very frustrating time at The Hague, but I congratulate her on remaining optimistic. The European Parliament delegation to the talks was equally disappointed at the outcome, although we were not surprised. Certainly we could have foreseen, as she could, the problem that arose over “sinks”. Those who read the French and British press will realise that there is quite a lot of attention on what seems to have been the breakdown in the relationship between Mrs Voynet, the French minister, and Mr Prescott, the British minister. They were, in a sense, an accident waiting to happen – like the Titanic and the iceberg. Mr Prescott is now holed below the water line and we do not know how long he will remain afloat. One of the things we feel, at least I feel in a personal capacity, is the trouble is that a Green minister has absolutely no room to negotiate on Green issues. Madam Voynet was bound not to give way to the American point of view. You would not expect any less of her, would you? My question to the Commissioner is: Does she feel that there is any flexibility likely to arise in the European Union position on “sinks”; secondly, when does she forecast that the talks are likely to resume; and thirdly, was Mr Prescott’s statement to the House of Commons actually true? He said in the House of Commons that the agreement which he had laboriously brokered with all the skills of a Sherman tank would have prevented developed countries from gaining credits from the clean development mechanism for planting forests in developing countries, which sounds rather good. This was felt by many countries, particularly the green groups, to be a huge loophole. The agreement would have placed a ceiling on the use of forest sinks by the United States, Japan and Canada, a ceiling which Europe had been asking for, and strengthen the scientific requirements applied to the domestic sinks. Given the – surprise – glowing report by Mr Prescott on the deal which he had himself brokered, why was it that not only Madam Voynet but, I believe, and this is my last question to the Commissioner, most of the other environment ministers in Europe all rejected that? It seems from Mr Prescott’s report to his own Parliament that he was making them an offer they could not refuse? In conclusion I regret that this has happened, but I hope that we will in the end share Mrs Wallström’s optimism and get the kind of agreement on climate change which we need. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Musotto report is a good report. The overall thrust is quite correct. The purpose of Cohesion Funds is to counteract the natural centrifugal forces of a large single economic and monetary unit, which is what the European Union and the euro zone are, by helping the less advantaged regions come up to the level of the more prosperous ones. This is the point: if the less advantaged remain less advantaged, the Cohesion Funds will have failed in their purpose. But that is why, contrary to what Mr Mussotto and the Committee on Regional Policy demand, we should stick to the 75% of average Community GNP as a graduation point. Having reached that level the pump will have been adequately primed and the graduating region, with a suitable transitional process, should be well able to continue up the escalator to 100% and higher. Surely it is only reasonable that at that point these Cohesion Fund resources should be reallocated to those regions which lie further behind. That is why I will vote against recitals O and R of Mr Musotto's report. There must also be financial discipline. An open-ended honey pot is not conducive to encouraging self-help and self-reliance. This is why I cannot countenance leaving open-ended the possibility of an even higher percentage of European Union GDP being committed to cohesion policies. 0.45% should be quite adequate and will make us hone our priorities and procedures, even in the context of enlargement. So the second half of paragraph 57, or any compromise of similar effect which leaves the amount be made available open-ended, is not acceptable. Given these small but significant changes I will be very pleased to support Mr Musotto's report as an important contribution to the future well-being of all parts of our European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President. I just want to inform Commissioner Verheugen that, last autumn in Mr Morillon’s report on Turkey, the European Parliament called upon Turkey to withdraw its occupying troops from northern Cyprus. That proposal from myself was adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and by Parliament. I wish to entrust Commissioner Verheugen with the task of requesting clarification from Mr Cem, the foreign minister, concerning what he said and what are his and the Turkish Government’s intentions, for I consider the information that has emerged on this subject at today’s Question Time to be very serious.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Union's policy towards the countries of the Mediterranean is a far cry from the Barcelona Process and an even farther cry from the real needs of the people in these countries. As Mr Naïr rightly said, the European Union only appears to be interested in the Mediterranean for reasons of security and only intervenes economically in order to gain a foothold on the markets in the southern countries. The new common strategy goes even further in the same direction; it even tries to involve the Mediterranean countries in the aggressive CFSP. Euro-Mediterranean collaboration is the main vehicle for interference in the internal affairs of the Mediterranean countries, and, ostensibly, all this is being done in the name of common prosperity, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. At the same time, the European Union remains resolutely indifferent to the tragedy of the Palestinian people and the murder of Palestinians by the state of Israel on a daily basis. The Communist Party of Greece defends collaboration between people on equal terms and without one country's interfering in the internal affairs of another. In particular, we would point out that it is the developed capitalist countries which are responsible for the current state of the underdeveloped countries. That is yet another reason why the developed countries are duty bound to help these countries develop their productive base and raise the standard of living of their inhabitants.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Commissioner, for your statement. I am sure that none of us here will object to fraud and tax evasion being tackled but I must say that it is necessary to maintain the confidence of citizens in the Union, and I think that many Member State governments will be wishing to look very carefully at any extension of QMV before agreeing to it. It does strike very much at the heart of what is perceived as the national ability to conduct one's affairs. I am thinking in particular of things such as the withholding tax, which it would have been quite unacceptable to have subjected to a QMV regime. I hope those points will be borne in mind when you look at the practicality of getting the package through. We are very happy to combat fraud and tax evasion and to improve social security legislation, but there are some points where there will be difficulty in convincing all the Member States to follow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, in closing the Copenhagen European Council which brought together the Heads of State and Government of the Fifteen Member States, the President-in-Office, Mr Rasmussen, stressed the truly historic nature of this event which puts an end to the period of separation. The subject of our work over recent days was a common vision for the future of our continent. A stroke of good luck but also intense and extremely commendable work by the Union, and especially by the candidate countries, has meant that the enlargement process, launched in 1992 in the Danish capital and forming the basis of the famous political criteria, named after Copenhagen, on democracy, the rule of law and human rights, has been completed in the same place. Look at how much progress has been made over the last 50 years! Look at how many barriers have been torn down, how many misunderstandings have been overcome! Twenty-five – soon to be twenty-seven – States are finally working together to achieve the objectives of freedom, democracy and responsibility. Such cooperation honours the fight that millions of our predecessors waged at the price of intense suffering and sacrifice. We still have a great deal of difficult ground to cover, no one has any illusions about this. The European Union must, in particular, respond to the need to make fundamental changes to the way it works and to its institutions. This is the work that the European Convention must bring to a successful conclusion under Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. We hope that the European Convention will lead to a draft for a single constitutional treaty that is legible and which responds to the need for a Europe that is more efficient, more democratic and perceived to be more legitimate by all European citizens. Unless we fundamentally reform the way in which the European Union currently works, Europe’s reunification will lead to weaker political will within Europe and this is something that we certainly do not want. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to put a question to the Commissioner. Is this the way in which the principle of transparency is to be applied, for two days ago it was impossible to discover which regulations you had adopted on access to documents. It is reminiscent of Orwell’s Animal Farm, where some are more equal than others. Despite searching, I have been unable to obtain access to your decision. This is not the way that transparency should function, with its taking more than a week to obtain information. Secondly, your reaction to the special report of the Ombudsman which was approved... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: ELDR