GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Kosovo was hopefully the last occasion on which international law could be interpreted as saying that dictators could persecute minorities in the most repellent way on the grounds that “it is happening within their own nation”. When the USA and NATO and, finally, also the EU, reacted, it was already late, in fact very late. A great deal of suffering could have been avoided if the EU, among others, has acted earlier and more decisively. We, the European Union, therefore have a special responsibility to help, support and rebuild the Balkans now. Our absolute objective must be to create the prior conditions for all countries in south-east Europe to be integrated with other countries in the EU – economically, politically and in terms of trade. Fertile soil for the growth of democracy in this war-ravaged part of Europe is best provided through trade and economic integration. We Liberals are prepared to go a long way and to do so quickly, just as Paolo Costa reported. It is therefore with great satisfaction that we welcome the proposal that is now being made for a stabilisation and association agreement with Macedonia, and we thank Mr Swoboda for a very good report. Macedonia deserves our support, especially in view of the self-sacrificial, disinterested work which the people and leaders of Macedonia undertook during the Kosovo war. Now that Macedonia is prising itself loose from the crushing embrace of Communism and nationalism, it is our duty to act and provide support in no uncertain terms. We should do exactly the same for the other countries in the Balkans. This is an urgent duty for the EU. Mr President, allow me in this context to remind MEPs – especially in view of a discussion earlier this evening – of the fact that the man who is mainly responsible for war, human degradation, murder and driving innocent people from their homes is still governing what remains of Yugoslavia, namely Serbia. The man who is accused of genocide and who ought to be brought before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague still goes free. I am talking about Milosevic. As long as Milosevic is still there and Serbia is not pursuing a democratic path, Serbia constitutes a constant threat to peace throughout the Balkans, including in Macedonia.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to thank both the rapporteurs for producing quality reports. I can support most of their amendments, but I have strong reservations about 10 out of the 51 amendments. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the Single European Sky concept. Personally, I wish to see it implemented as soon as possible to eliminate delays, reduce emissions and enhance safety. My primary reservations stem from how to best secure the military's involvement in the Single European Sky. That it why I support the Council's common position – its compromise on the flexible use of airspace where civil access is permitted to designated military airspace when it is not in use. This compromise solution was arrived at after careful negotiations over many months. I consider that it offers genuine and important benefits by ensuring that the greater effectiveness of the FUA concept is rolled out across the European Union. Amendments that bring the military into the scope of the Single European Sky regulations will clearly be opposed by some Members and, I fear, by many in the Council. Reopening the debate on this issue will clearly be counterproductive to the whole process of the Single European Sky. In conclusion, there is a real danger that, by seeking to amend the common position in this regard, we might jeopardise the entire Single European Sky project, something I am sure that we all wish to avoid.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we in the Socialist Group are very concerned that no tangible proposals on the environment were forthcoming at the Barcelona Summit. The Barcelona Council was billed as the occasion when the objectives for a new strategy on sustainable development set at Göteborg and Lisbon were to be transformed into specific initiatives. This has not proved the case. Instead, the document on the conclusions contains far too liberal a sprinkling of terms such as reaffirms, highlights or reiterates. In essence, therefore, it remains a declaration of intent. There is no reference to a timetable or to specific action in the short or medium term. It is depressing to survey the meagre offerings we are taking to Johannesburg as far as the environment is concerned. Old habits die hard. Once again, the Barcelona Summit failed to give equal weight to economic, social and environmental concerns. For example, there was no reference to the potential of environmental conservation as a source of employment. Further, in the section on priority actions there is no mention of the promotion of environmentally friendly transport, something the House has repeatedly called for. The Socialist Group welcomes the stated intent of meeting the Kyoto commitments. Nonetheless, we must continue to press for national plans to this end. The example of Spain, which currently holds the Presidency, is particularly serious. It is 23% over the limit for emissions already. This is why we maintain that mere declarations of intent will not help to bring about the Europe of sustainable development. I should like to voice one last concern. The Barcelona Council departed from the balanced combination of policies. We had hoped this would be cast in stone following Lisbon and Göteborg. The document on the conclusions is underpinned by that now obsolete sectoral vision of policies. This runs counter to the longed-for combination of the economic and social and the environmental. Employment, transport, energy and research are all dealt with according to a sectoral approach. The environmental dimension is not built in, which amounts to a step backwards, despite what Mr Prodi said about moving ahead. We should not be regressing. Quite the opposite is needed. We have to be more ambitious and put specific programmes and dates on the table. That is what was lacking at the Barcelona Summit. Mr Jiménez-Beltrán, Director of the European Environment Agency was quite right when he said that the Union would either have to be sustainable or bust.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my 34 colleagues from the Social Democratic Party of Germany and also on my own behalf, I should like to make the following comments about the vote on the Watson report, which was formerly the Schmitt report. In the Federal Republic at present, the issue of immigration/asylum legislation and residence rights in Germany are the subject of a very broad debate. The Federal government, the German Bundestag, the Länder, party commissions and cross-party commissions have been engaged in an intensive debate on issues which to some extent fall within the scope of the Watson report, and we are currently in the process of debating legislation within Parliament and between Parliament, the Federal government and the Bundesrat. Against this background, the SPD representatives in this House have been presented with Commission proposals, the opinions of the rapporteur, Mr Schmitt – now Mr Watson – and proposals from the various groups which partly conform and partly conflict with the domestic policy issues facing Social Democrats in Germany. On a number of points, we have therefore deviated from our group's voting behaviour or rejected the proposals. Here, our apparent proximity to the PPE- Group exists solely on paper, for our substantive views are generally different from theirs. However, we joined our group in supporting the Watson report in the final vote out of our sense of Social Democratic loyalty, although in terms of German constitutional law, we had major concerns on a number of issues which we believed it was important to voice. I felt I should explain this background because when the vote was taken in this House, we had yet to reach a position in the domestic policy debate. As a result, some of what we have agreed here does not necessarily tie in with what we are debating at home.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, the World Conference on Racism in Durban was overshadowed from the outset by a political strategy of discrimination. Arab States attempted to impute racism to Israel, with the intention of making the Arab world out to be victims of Israeli racism, which was then to be condemned by the conference. This was a perfidious strategy. They attempted to make use of this important conference for their own purposes. Like the conference as a whole, any attempt to seriously get to grips with this strategy was sunk by the terrible events on 11 September. We now have a situation in which the entire Arab world is in danger of itself being pilloried in a racist way. All people of Arab origin or from an Islamic cultural background are in danger of having the deeds of a small terrorist group laid at their door. There are, unfortunately, already examples of how this can happen openly and violently. It can also, however, happen surreptitiously through concealed mistrust. Either way, it is a creeping venom seeping into our open society and becoming a burden on it. This would represent a victory for the terrorists. So let us not allow it to happen! Let us not follow the bad example that cast a pall over the Durban Conference. We Members of Europe's Parliament, above all people, must be wary of rashly pigeonholing people by nationality and religion. Let us be an example. Let us continue to be open and tolerant. But the terrorists must be in no doubt: they will be pursued with rigour, with no regard to race and religion. We here can do something against racism. Let us act accordingly and give an example. That will be worth more than all the conferences in the world, something that will be demonstrated when we take this debate to its post-Durban conclusion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the report now before us is an important contribution to the aim of simplifying and improving environmental legislation in the Community. For this special thanks go to my colleague, Mr Sacconi. The feedback hitherto on environmental agreements has shown that a significant number of environmental and civil society players have viewed voluntary agreements with suspicion, even when the act of making the agreement in itself has been voluntary (although the agreement itself is binding). On the other hand, it has been the wish of industry to spread the practice of making voluntary agreements in order to achieve positive results from the point of view of flexibility, and so also, hopefully, that of the environment. As I see it, the gap is now becoming well and truly bridged. The report works on the assumption that voluntary agreements may be applied when the impact can be assessed using an integrated method and the added value for civil society can be measured using indicators of sustainable development. Secondly, we have to be able to define our objectives and set clear deadlines for them. In addition, we must insist on the agreement being representative. In practice this would mean that badly organised sectors or those that provide opportunities for ‘free riding’ would not be suitable for inclusion in any voluntary agreement. With voluntary agreements it is just as necessary as it is with legislative measures to take account of public participation and to guarantee the transparency of agreements. In addition we must ensure the binding nature of any agreement, the assessment of results and possible penalties. With these conditions in place there is no risk attached to the use of voluntary agreements. The conditions mentioned will guarantee that an agreement will produce a better end result than legislative instruments, from the point of view of the environment and society. I must also therefore say that the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, should be supported. The procedure for concluding an agreement generally instils a sense of genuine commitment to the objective in the party to that agreement. It often goes deeper than the wording of the agreement or the letter of the law. Thus, operators will not be using up their resources looking for loopholes; instead, they will be seeking ways to effectively implement the objective.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am concerned about the delay which Sweden has now negotiated for itself. I think that deadlines are there to be kept to. I think that we should all abide by the same rules in the internal market, and I therefore intend to vote accordingly. The Swedish Government knew that this derogation was to expire after six months, but all too little has been done to overcome the alcohol abuse which exists. I am particularly concerned about young people’s drinking habits and the easy access to illegal alcohol. Swedish alcohol policy is now in pieces. At the same time, what we have in Sweden is a government which, having yielded to public pressure, has tried to meet the public’s demands for easier access to alcohol. The Swedish alcohol monopoly now opens on Saturdays and at more locations. In many ways, accessibility has also increased due to the larger number of premises serving alcoholic drinks. Above all, however, it is illegal sales of spirits, beer and wine which have increased at the expense of Swedish jobs, tax revenue and supervision. All too little is being done about outright abuse, at the same time as the ordinary drinker has continued to be over-protected and not to have anything like equal rights to import alcohol following visits on holiday to, for example, Denmark or France. I am concerned about this inability to get to grips with the real problems. Today, perhaps not more than 30 per cent of sales in Sweden take place via the channels controlled by the politicians. The rest are illegal and may, for example, involve gangland operations, illicit distilling or smuggling by private individuals who, as the politicians see it, are bringing more than their ration into the country. That is why I am saying that Swedish alcohol policy, which involves charging high prices for alcohol and making it difficult to obtain, has foundered. I would say to Göran Färm that there has been ample time to do something about this situation. The catalogue of initiatives he mentions should have been embarked upon a long, long time ago. What is more, a lot can be done in the way of providing information and disseminating knowledge. The Swedish Social Democratic Government’s bargaining on this issue shows, however, that there has been no concern about, or belief in, people. Instead, it is only the tax base to which close attention has been given.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the Commission's communication and today's statements. Macao offers an opportunity for trade, dialogue and engagement which is the way to bring freedom and democracy to the Communist dictatorship of the People's Republic of China. I welcome too Commissioner Patten's honourable personal commitment and record of success in this regard. However, for the Union to talk of a shared legal system between Europe and Macao stretches credibility. Recently, a private commercial dispute involving the financial interests of the mainland's political leaders led to the kidnap in Macao of an innocent Australian-Chinese businessman, Mr James Pang, and his jailing on the mainland for seven years on trumped-up charges. Since China has refused to agree to the establishment of a court of final appeal, Macao has barely even the semblance of an independent judiciary which Hong Kong has. Today's news from Hong Kong in this regard is not good. The court of final appeal has reversed the judgement of a lower court and convicted two young men for defacing a flag at a peaceful demonstration, despite the incorporation of the ICCPR into the territory's law. It shows how supposed safeguards on freedom in Hong Kong are being quickly eroded. Let us keep talking to China on Macao and other issues but let us not fool ourselves that the Christmas gift we give Macao next week will protect the freedoms of its people. In the communication, the Commission talks of 'a solid relationship in terms of culture and civilisation'. I hope the Council and Commission will assure us that they will not shrink from expressing Europe's outrage at the continued assaults on human rights and human liberties which pose a major challenge to us in the next century.

Political group: ELDR
I voted against the resolution for several reasons. I believe that bringing to justice those responsible for the terrorist attacks in the United States should not mean suffering and terror for other innocent people. It is vital that any action taken in response to these atrocities does not trigger more attacks like it or even worse. The international community has a duty to seek to understand what may have led to these terrible crimes. It must try to understand because to refuse to do so will contribute to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead. I believe that the United States, and the coalition of countries that has been formed, must be sensitive to global security as a whole. If the US responds with attacks on Afghanistan it too will be killing innocent people and two wrongs never make a right. I strongly feel that we, as politicians in the democratic world, have a great responsibility to uphold the principles of non-violence and to ensure that such unjustifiable violence does not escalate.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I agree with many of the comments that have been made so far by Mrs McKenna and Mrs Maij-Weggen on the situation in Burma. However I would also like to refer to the specific case of a constituent of mine, which provides a good example of the brutality of the present Burmese authorities. In September 1999, James Mawdsley, from the north-east of England was sentenced to 17 years' solitary confinement in a Burmese prison. His mother is currently travelling to Burma hoping to see him. His crime, according to the Burmese authorities, was to enter the country and attempt to draw attention to the human rights abuses taking place there. The charges against him were trumped up. For example, he was alleged to have entered the country illegally and yet British embassy staff have seen his passport, which is stamped with a Burmese immigration stamp showing that he had arrived completely legally. British Government ministers and staff have been making constant efforts to draw the attention of the Burmese authorities to his plight, but with no success. I ask Parliament and the Commission to do all they possibly can to secure his release.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is interesting to see that none of our British Conservative colleagues are here today to support their record on liberalisation in such areas as the railways. A recent UK parliamentary report on water privatisation has shown that many poorer people, such as pensioners, have had such difficulty in meeting their bills that they have been cutting their water use to a bare minimum. In some cases this has been described as verging on a public health crisis. The drive for privatisation has also been part of a drive to reduce costs in the public sector and this has often resulted in wage squeezes that have hit the lowest paid. The tab for that is still picked up by the public purse through effectively subsidising wages in that area. Those people may be on a minimum wage, but it is not necessarily a liveable wage. That is not to say that everything in the public sector has been perfect, but in our view a lot of the claims made for liberalisation in this report are highly questionable. My Group does not believe that general-interest services can be treated in the same way as companies which produce, for example, plastic key rings. It is not an area that should be subject to general competition policy and we have tabled amendments to that effect. We believe that competition rules need to give way to general-interest services, and not the reverse. We agree entirely with the Commission on the need for legal clarity. That is an issue we have often raised in connection with GATS and is the subject of an amendment we have tabled and for which we hope to win support.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I fully support this draft resolution to enhance high-education co-operation with third countries. Education is changing rapidly to fit the needs of the so-called knowledge society and new economy, and it is generally recognised that the US has the competitive advantage over the EU in this domain. The departure of the best and brightest students overseas is a sad indication of this. If we focus on assuring the mutual recognition of qualifications and invest in language training for those students who could potentially learn in another European country, we will go some way towards closing this gap. Education must be seen as a core component of the Lisbon strategy and there must be detailed, continuous and rigorous attention paid to ensuring that our education is open to all and is of as high quality as the American system. Indeed, Europe must capitalise on the fact that for those people who want to increase their skills base and learn languages, this is the ideal destination to do so. - Ageing (B5-0239/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the truth is that the region of Central America has been suffering for too long. First there were the death squads and the extreme right governments. Then, with democracy won thanks to the mediation of the European Union, there were corrupt governments; then there were the catastrophes of Hurricane Mitch, earthquakes and now this drought, which, as has been said, means hunger, misery and death for hundreds of thousands of people. The European Union must behave with a solidarity which distinguishes it from others, not only by approving budgets for this circumstance, but, as has been said, also for the coming years, by approving important and essential budgets which will eliminate the causes and consequences of this drought. I drafted the report on the reconstruction of Central America after Hurricane Mitch, and I have seen that the corruption in the area prevents aid from arriving directly. We therefore recommend that the aid which we grant arrives in the most direct way possible by means of local councils and democratic NGOs.

Political group: GUE-NGL
There is much to be welcomed in the new directive when compared to its predecessor. I particularly welcome the recognition of the possible wider direct and indirect effects and risks of the release of GMOs into the environment. I am pleased that there will be a public register of the location of GMOs whether deliberately released or placed on the market. The requirement concerning the termination of unauthorised releases also clarifies the need for a consistent response. However, I regret the delay on the ban of antibiotic markers and the qualification attached to this ban, the streamlining and setting of shorter deadlines for the authorisation procedures and a number of other factors in this final result. I have therefore abstained in the vote. The whole regulatory package is not yet clear: for example in relation to liability and the export to non-GMO states. Neither am I convinced that the research capability currently exists to fully assess the factors contained in the directive. The needs of our environment and biodiversity should be paramount in this area. I do not believe that is the currently the position of Council.

Political group: Verts-ALE