GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I am just so tired of being accused of not wanting to do my job because I am taking part in this action. If this Parliament is to be taken even a tiny bit seriously in Europe – and it is touch and go whether it will be, given that only 50% of citizens voted at the last European Parliament elections – then it must take itself seriously, and we are not taking ourselves seriously by sitting and discussing cases when there is nobody here. That is not a serious way of doing things. If Parliament has to work on Friday, then people must be here. What we are asking for is simply confirmation of whether we are observing Parliament’s own rules. That can hardly be called frivolous.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This society of ours, which is fundamentally unequal owing to the inequality between social classes, also hides a multitude of other inequalities. Thus certain regions which, owing to their geographical position, do not offer every advantage from the point of view of capitalist profit, inevitably receive less investment. The advocates of the liberal economy do not, themselves, have any means of going some way towards compensating for this inequality, other than to appeal to a state or to the European institutions, which boils down to the same thing. We would not be against this type of compensation if it relieved, for the working classes, the handicaps resulting from the actual operation of the capitalist economy. However, the destructive forces of the capitalist economy are more powerful than the derisory resolutions of the European Parliament. Even if subsidies are approved for less-favoured regions, at the end of the day it will not necessarily be those regions and their working classes who benefit from them. This has been proved precisely by the ultra-peripheral regions which the report presents as a model for isolated mountain regions. In spite of aid and subsidies, both national and European, Réunion, Guadeloupe and Martinique, to name but a few, still have a particularly high level of unemployment and particularly low wages. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it was the task of the Nice Summit to develop a Union capable of absorbing twelve new Member States. A European Union which can function efficiently, transparently and democratically. After all, the countries from Central and Eastern Europe want a robust Union, a Union capable of taking decisions. It is to be welcomed that the timetable adopted in Nice, with regard to the accession of the first countries from Central and Eastern Europe, is in line with Parliament’s timetable. But what is striking is that the Council spent four days in seclusion in Nice giving more attention to its own concerns. There was no answer to the question as to how the institutions of the European Union could function more effectively in an enlarged Union. The Council really looked after number one; to be sure, it improved things for the Commission to a certain extent and put a little sweetener Parliament’s way, as befits a father. But it all compares most unfavourably with the attention the Council gave itself. Four main problems loom large. Firstly, institutional imbalance: a great deal for the Council and not much for the Commission and Parliament. Secondly, national interests have triumphed. Only the Belgian Head of Government, Mr Verhofstadt, was a notable exception. Thirdly, a democratic deficit. Old deficits have not been made good and now new ones have come along. Fourthly, and finally, the decision-making mechanisms cannot be explained back home. It all gets very complicated. When Mr Prodi says there are no more leftovers from Nice, I would make so bold as to doubt his word. We must introduce qualified majority decision-making for the essential topics, or else the situation will become untenable. Nice will go down in history as the Summit of lost opportunity, the Summit of lack of leadership in Europe, the Summit of opposition and the Summit in whose wake the people felt even more isolated from the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the 1995 changeover plan has proved to be worthwhile. The rapporteur rightly emphasises the careful preparations leading up to the introduction of the euro, and we must ensure that the euro does indeed enjoy the confidence of the citizens and not just that of the markets, where it is now established. The first year of the euro’s introduction and life with monetary union is associated, then, with a lack of awareness of the euro on the part of the citizens, that is to say the consumers. It is not without reason that as yet, only 1% of transfers and 4% of credit card transactions are performed in euros. This would suggest that we really do need information campaigns. Not only did we need to have these campaigns in the years before monetary union started, we also need to pursue them now that it is in force, and this is not a task that we should just leave to the European Central Bank. We, too, in our capacity as European Commission, European Parliament, and governments of the Member States, must launch a new initiative in this respect, so that political discussions on the value of the euro do not cause the citizens to suddenly start thinking that, although they may inhabit a monetary union, this has lent no added value to Europe. Rather, they must be made aware of the fact that they are living in an age of new monetary reform. This false assumption, which is still very much prevalent because the exchange rate between the euro, the dollar and the yen has, I regret to say, developed rather differently than appeared would be the case on 4 January, must not, however, lead to a situation in which erroneous ideas as to the value of the euro hold sway. The internal value of the currency is decisive and the fact that we can record values for the euro 11-zone that truly inspire confidence is of historic importance. It is a good thing that it is becoming clear, and is made transparent time and time again in the monetary dialogue between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank, how important price stability is for this independent, monetary authority; and it is a good thing that the ECB should see that this goal is accomplished in a manner accessible to ordinary citizens. I believe it would be wrong to break out in a panic now, here in this Chamber, on account of exchange rate trends. I think the exchange rates are exhausted in any case. The important thing to do in these circumstances, though, is to support the development of the euro by having more coordination of economic policy within the European Union. Monetary policy will not be in a position to enhance the credibility of European integration for the benefit of growth, employment and also investment, if the Member States of the European Union do not, coincidentally with the harmonisation and centralisation of monetary policy, join forces more resolutely in giving out signals against tax dumping and social dumping, and in favour of increased employment.

Political group: PSE
Mr newly-elected President of this Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, are we, then, more stupid than our children? (Applause) Are we not in a position, in this technological day and age, to press two keys? We have had the OECD's PISA survey, we have had appraisals, we have a new President, we have paid a lot of money for this system, for which we have had criticism for a long time, and now we want to vote as if this were the Stone Age! (Loud applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would join my voice to those who have talked about the tragedy of Dover and the young lives cut short there, but I also want to add my revulsion at the attitude of many people: well, what do you expect, if you take these risks you have got to expect that you might die. It is a cruel and judgmental attitude that has appeared in much of the press and it does not help us find a solution. If governments are serious about combating trafficking, these are three areas they need to think about. How can people legally enter the countries of the European Union, especially those coming from third countries which experience poverty or oppression? Secondly, how can we gain the confidence of those who could provide evidence against trafficking organisations. I welcome what we have heard about that this afternoon. Thirdly, how the current policies of the European Union and its Member States help to create refugees. We should not be concentrating so much on a deterrent policy at our borders. We need to look at how we are contributing to the incentive to leave. We need to examine the consequences of our policies on, for example, trade, its rules and terms and who we will trade with, the conduct of companies based in the European Union and their operations in other countries such as Nigeria, the arms sales by Member States to repressive regimes. If we are looking at real co-development, that will be a major step forward and I welcome that. I think we should be considering how our open market closed-border policies are assisting the market forces driving the increases in human trafficking.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Trafficking in human beings, and emigration which is claimed to be voluntary but which is in fact forced on people by destitution, have one thing in common: they are both the result of the poverty which afflicts most of the world. Without a deep-seated social change which puts an end to a system which, in order to concentrate wealth in the hands of the privileged classes of the rich countries, impoverishes the labouring classes of the world, it will not be possible to halt either so-called voluntary emigration or trafficking in human beings. We voted in favour of the text in order to express our condemnation of those who profit from this type of traffic or from the sex trade. Nevertheless, it has to be said that this most irresolute of resolutions does not finish what it sets out to do, since it could only achieve its objective by granting the victims of this trafficking not a temporary residence permit but the full right to remain, if they wish to, in the countries of the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate is not about reopening old, historical wounds, which have not completely healed. It is not about rekindling ancestral hatreds or blowing on the embers of intolerance, as I have heard talk of in this Chamber. What is at stake is not even the acknowledgement of the reality of Armenian genocide, since this House has already had occasion to express its views on this, most notably in its resolution of June 1987. What the Members of the European Parliament asked of Turkey in 1987 was to have the courage to open its eyes to the past so as to be able to look to the future. Historical truth is the guarantor of democracy. It must not and cannot suffer specific financial or economic interests, be they of individuals, governments or states. Truth and remembrance are not negotiable. It is enough to remember what happened in Germany, which recognised the Shoah and which, after the Second World War, became a major democratic country. This is what we are hoping for once again today when we call upon the Morillon report to make reference to genocide. Acknowledging genocide must be a call for dialogue to be established between the new Armenian and Turkish generations. The whole of the Armenian community and the Armenian children who fled into exile at the beginning of the century to the countries of Europe are today waiting for justice to be done. They want to offer a memorial to their ancestors, the victims of genocide. At a time when the last witnesses of exile, the last survivors of the carnage, are quietly passing away, the work and the duty of remembrance are even more necessary. But beyond the duty of remembrance which we must demand from all democracies, and the people of Europe know just how difficult and painful a task this is, so difficult in fact that some European countries have not yet completed it, it is incumbent on us to ensure that such acts of barbarism, which destroyed lives for ethnic, religious and cultural reasons and which offend the conscience of the world, never recur. Europe must spread this message.

Political group: PSE
First of all, may I also commend Mr Wuori for his wide-ranging report and Mr Cornillet for his boldness and his vision in trying to fashion a new procedure for the annual report on Fundamental Rights in the EU, linked to the Charter. In both reports, however, there is still cause for concern and alarm. The reality is that as we speak in this House, human rights abuses continue; human rights defenders disappear. In Vietnam, for example, religious persecution continues and Buddhist monks remain imprisoned and under repressive house arrest. Flung San Suu Kyi remains imprisoned in her home in Burma. The death penalty is still carried out in democracies such as the United States. In Belgrade, the police stand by and watch as hooligans attack lesbians and gay people at their gay pride celebration only days after millions of EU dollars were committed to that region and Milosevic was sent to The Hague. Egypt incarcerates 55 gay men who are still denied legal representation and now face up to eight years in prison because they are gay. Women are still genitally mutilated, human beings stoned to death, their limbs chopped off in the name of law. Homosexuals are stoned to death, there is religious persecution, and children are abducted into war, not to mention the obscenities of rape and terrorism, torture and false disappearances – a catalogue of almost unutterable suffering which grows year on year. In the EU, our own record on fundamental rights needs closer examination. The treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers; discrimination sometimes state-induced, against homosexuals; racism and racist murders; and inequality before the law. The same applies to applicant countries. The message we should send is that human rights are non-negotiable. So long as one individual or one group suffers discrimination, we have all failed and we are all culpable. A hierarchy of oppression is perpetuated by legislative inaction and democratic inaction. We defend some minorities but not others. When we name and shame countries, we are accused of imposing our standards. But the standards we aspire to and we set are international standards, standards by which we must all be judged. That is why we must be consistent in implementing human rights policy and systematically follow up human rights abuses. I commend the Cotonou Agreement, as mentioned by Commissioner Patten. We need to work closely with the United Nations and with the special rapporteurs as well as the NGOs. We must develop our own in-house expertise and ensure that men, women and children born equal are afforded their natural human rights and civil liberties. Our most powerful weapon is our imagination. Imagine, that is you being tortured, mutilated, imprisoned, stoned to death because you are different or hold a different opinion. Imagine that it happens to your daughter, your son, your father, your mother, your brother, your sister. That is the reality and that is why we need a new approach. We need it now. We must not fail those who look to us to succeed. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a quite remarkable as well as a cynical debate that we are holding here. I am almost inclined to resist any involvement in a discussion about which type of lethal ammunition is the better. And yet that is what we are doing today. I have never taken any part in debates about which wars are expedient and which are unavoidable either. That is not our subject today. We have a different subject to discuss. In the past, we have repeatedly said that, if it is necessary to use armed force – and we have always agreed on this – we must ensure that our intervention has no more impact than is absolutely essential and that it does the least possible damage to the environment and to the health of those who survive it. This, of course, is why we have constantly condemned and denounced chemical weapons, for example, and have always agreed that these weapons must never be used, because the havoc they wreak on the environment and on human health is out of all proportion to their military effectiveness. If we are discussing today whether munitions containing uranium do or do not cause leukaemia, then I have no desire to hear anyone tell us, not even Dr Solana, whom I greatly respect, whether or not there is definitive proof. We are not talking about definitive proof, and when we spoke in this House about our own health and about BSE, we certainly all agreed that the precautionary principle had to be applied, even though we were never able to prove that infected substances are the cause of new-variant Creutzfeld-Jacob disease. (Applause) We recently discussed the precautionary principle and put it to the vote, and we said that we must ban particular substances or procedures if there are justifiable concerns about them, even if there is no definitive proof. We know today that there are numerous cases of leukaemia. And as long as the scientists are still arguing, as long as all of us do not know which of the scientists is correct, we must agree that this ammunition cannot be used until every last aspect of the issue has been resolved. Surely nothing less than a moratorium on this ammunition would be an acceptable decision for us to take today. But in addition to this we must also care for the people who live in the regions, for their health and the health of their children. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Following the last ‘reform’ of the common organisation of the market in the olive oil sector and now that the transitional period has come to an end for the Commission to change the aid system, from aid for production to aid per tree, the Commission has presented its strategy for olive oil quality and is extending the present aid system for a further two years. This extension is to be welcomed, but the Commission has failed to provide a solution on three points that were not resolved in the 1998 reform. These are: the establishment of compensation aid for small producers, as proposed by Parliament; a ban on the sale of olive oil mixed with other fats and labelling that does not mislead the consumer and which only gives the name ‘olive oil’ to products made from olives. Furthermore, doing away with mechanisms for public intervention and replacing them with private stockpiling has not managed to prevent a fall in prices and the consequences of this on reducing farmers’ incomes. Salvador Jové’s report seeks to resolve some of these fundamental issues, particularly with regard to blends, and I support his ideas on this matter. The report by Paulo Casaca undermines the European Parliament’s resolutions by using an opinion on the report by the Court of Auditors to go ahead with proposals to replace the current system of aid for production with direct aid to farmers, which opens the way to the Commission’s option of per tree premiums. We must reject this proposal. Aid per tree would not only have damaging consequences for production and for employment – with the olives not being harvested – but we would also lose a key element for monitoring the production of olive oil and its quality. This would consequently increase opportunities for fraudulent practices.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioners, I am conscious of the fact that you will be carrying upon your shoulders great responsibilities, which are to some extent controlled by this Parliament, but ultimately, it is your decisions, accepted by the Council, that count. You must remember that you are representing each and every one of the millions of citizens in this united Europe. You are faced with great challenges: the creation of employment, social security, the inclusion of those that are marginalised, the creation of wealth for the growth of the economy and prosperity. I know there is a lot to be done. We know that you have brilliant technocrats working with you, but you must never lose sight of the political aspect. There are wise politicians who are sensitive to the needs of the people and these reports and discussions reflect the concerns of the citizens most in need.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have no problem with what is in the Minutes – it is what is not in the Minutes that is a problem for me. In Wednesday's Minutes there is a list of Members who changed their vote. I notice that in yesterday's Minutes there is no such list, even though I am aware of at least two Members who changed their vote on the resolution on capital tax. Can you tell me when we will be told of these changes of vote, because obviously it is of interest to certain Members. I presume that addendum will be made in the next set of Minutes, and we will have an opportunity to comment at that time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, it is a valuable piece of work which Mr van Velzen has carried out. On behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I want to point out that we support the original report. We cannot, however, support all the amendments because they do not show the increased clarity which might well be demanded when, within a few weeks, we shall have the concrete draft directives on the table. I do not think it is necessary for us to agree upon woolly compromises a few weeks before we have the directives in front of us. Today, we can discuss the telecommunications area at a sociable hour and not, as we usually do, late in the evening with just a few telecommunications freaks taking part. There is therefore also good reason for noting that, since we last met, important solutions for Europe have been produced at the World Radio Conference in Istanbul. It is also important that we in the European Parliament should support the preparatory work which has been done in the CEPT, or European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations, and that we should not criticise this work for I believe that it was one of the reasons why Europe was successful to the point that our models were adopted and that we obtained supplementary limits for the third generation telephones, as well as uniform frequencies throughout the world. When we talk about the forthcoming principles, I think it is extremely important that, then too, we try to strike a balance regarding technology-neutral solutions. I believe, for example, that, even today, the auctions we are talking about are not technology-neutral because they discriminate against mobile telephony in relation to the existing, fixed networks. That is not being technology-neutral. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party has tabled amendments to cancel the demands to merge the national regulatory and competition authorities. We do not think that this would be in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. There is no reason for requiring a merger in this context. What is more, we have a very great variety of solutions in different Member States.

Political group: ELDR