GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The unprecedented crisis in the financial system is the result of the deep economic crisis in the capitalist system and the clash of interests and acute competition between monopolies. The wave of scandals to hit large monopolies and financial service groups in the USA and Europe has exacerbated the lack of faith in the financial system by highlighting its unaccountability and revealing how the market, small investors and savers, pension funds and insurance companies are constantly deceived, with new ways being found of exploiting and sucking the masses dry. And yet no control measures with any teeth have been introduced, which perhaps goes to show that the control mechanisms responsible have been hiding rather than monitoring information and have basically acted as consultants in deception. ‘Creative’, ‘constructive’ accounting has been well and truly adopted even in national accounts as a way of deceiving citizens. The only purpose of any supposed controls proposed or applied to date has been to placate justified grass-roots reaction; nothing is being done to prevent or compensate the victims of unaccountable monopolies as they destroy workers and small and medium-sized enterprises, because that would jeopardise the social and economic system itself, based as it is on the principle of exploitation. We are here to highlight the political dimensions of the economic crisis as we fight with the workers to overturn this rotten system. - Lipietz report (A5-0352/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The British Conservative delegation is strongly supportive of human rights, properly defined, and welcomed much of the content of the report, in particular the call for more effective and consistent action in respect of countries such as Zimbabwe. However, we abstained in the face of omissions and many unhelpful elements, for example: ·

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like firstly to thank Mrs Dührkop Dührkop, as is customary, for her good report concerning SAB 5/99. In addition to Mrs Dührkop’s report, we have already heard the debates on the issues of own resources and budgetary discipline and the truth is that none will be of any advantage to the tax-payer unless we improve the efficiency of the campaign against fraud. Mrs Theato has just commented very effectively on the fact that we have replaced UCLAF with OLAF. We are debating how to find the most suitable director. But none of this is of any use if we do not provide OLAF with the necessary resources. Therefore, I am pleased that by means of this supplementary and amending budget of EUR 202 million the new posts can be increased from 15 to 30 and that, furthermore, it should be done this time with the agreement of the Council. Every day, OLAF is having to deal with an increasing number of problems. Every day, the geographic area is increasing and I therefore believe that every day, OLAF must be provided with sufficient means, both in terms of personnel and of material means, so that it may attend to the new issues. For example, I believe that one of the parts which has still not been sufficiently studied is the proportionality of fines: I am referring to the fact that the worst fraud should be punished with the greatest fine. We also lack knowledge of the details when a fine is lowered or waived. Therefore, I have always said – and I repeat it here today – that in order to move forward, good will is not enough, but we also need the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament to move in the same direction. And, as in this case, to be able to count on a strong and effective OLAF which will benefit the European tax-payer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Solbes Mira – who has previously been a Minister for Fisheries and is therefore not insensitive to this debate, despite not currently being responsible for the sector – I wish to address my first words of congratulation to Mr Martin, who has proved once again that he is an excellent MEP by producing this magnificent report, which is entirely appropriate to the current situation. Congratulations, Mr Martin. This report gives us an excellent analysis of the current state of aquaculture in the European Union and also provides us with important guidelines for the future. Amongst these I should like to emphasise the need to draw up integrated environmental management plans for both coastal and inland areas, since the need for such environmental plans has become evident following the recent Erika and Prestige disasters. Secondly, the need to increase food safety in order to ensure the health and confidence of Europe’s citizens, promoting research and adequate funding of the sector, both for new units and for modernising existing ones. It is clear, therefore, that aquaculture has a great future. Nevertheless, as a consequence of recent food crises that have beset Europe, consumers have become suspicious of aquaculture. It must be stated, however, that intensive production is not necessarily synonymous with the absence of hygienic conditions. This is why we in the European Union have a set of standards for technical requirements that do not exist in other parts of the world. This means that there is a high degree of monitoring of these hygiene conditions. Nevertheless, these rules must be reinforced and improved so that our citizens view aquaculture-produced fish with complete confidence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Fatuzzo's report paints an unvarnished picture of the thoroughly problematic retirement provision situation in all the European Union's Member States, in particular of the problems that already exist, and will certainly get worse in the future, in financing the national systems for providing pensions and other benefits. It is quite beyond dispute that the EU needs to be active in this area as well as in others and to make its contribution to a possible solution of these problems, but it must do this within the framework of the legal bases in the Treaty establishing the European Community. Social security systems differ very widely from one EU Member State to another. More so than nearly all other legislative areas, they have grown from historic roots and have therefore evaded harmonisation of any kind at the European level. My criticism is directed at the method of so-called open coordination for pensions that the Council has introduced, a method that the Fatuzzo report welcomes. This procedure would lead to the European Union appropriating for itself, without any basis in the Treaties and, so to speak, cold-bloodedly, a legislative authority that belongs to nations. Council resolutions cause Member States to subject themselves to ever more restrictive and more detailed demands, the result being a quasi-legal obligation and liability. We have, indeed, already been able to observe this development in the area of policy on the labour market and employment. We are in favour of a clear demarcation of legislative competences between the EU and the Member States, that being the only way to guarantee the citizens of Europe comprehensibility and transparency, in short, legal clarity. In addition, the most fatal side effect of what is termed open coordination is that the only institution of the European Union to have any democratic legitimacy, namely Parliament, is completely sidelined. The Council has announced the extension of open coordination to other highly sensitive areas such as health provision and care for the elderly. It is therefore high time for Parliament to show the Council where the lines are drawn and take a position on this, above all in defence of its own interests. The CSU delegation within the , because of its substantial misgivings about open coordination, will not be voting in favour of the Fatuzzo report. I would like to see wide-ranging discussion on this issue in Parliament in the future – with specific reference too to the legislative work of the Convention.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the job Parliament has here today is quite simple: to adopt or reject the compromise achieved in conciliation. What did we achieve in conciliation? Out of 15 amendments tabled in second reading, compromises were reached on 11. In this House we have a duty to deal with the facts, not to listen to the jungle drums beating from misinformed sources. I welcome the changes in amendments, made by my own political group, to recognise the legitimate interests of employees in a takeover bid. Here the common text has been modified from a requirement to provide new information to a requirement to provide information to employees at three points in the directive: in Article 6(1), Article 6(2) and Article 9(1d). There are minimum standards. There is nothing to prevent boards of companies or Member States going further than the requirements in this directive, nor does it prejudice obligations to inform and consult under either national or EU directives. We can only, in conciliation, go as far as amendments allow us in second reading. No amendments were tabled requiring the board of a company to consult prior to a takeover bid. It is no secret that Article 9, and the right of boards to take defensive action without shareholder approval, was the bone of contention in conciliation. But is simply not true to state that the board of a company faced with a hostile takeover cannot take action or is obliged to remain neutral or passive. Defensive and frustrating action is possible with shareholder approval. Indeed, our amendments to the common position mean that a board can get fast-track approval in 14 days. I have always believed that politics is the art of the possible. In conciliation the Council and the Commission stuck to their key objective in this directive, of protecting the minority shareholders, protecting the interests of investors and defending shareholders against unscrupulous directors and inefficient company boards. Article 9 and restrictions on frustrating action was the Holy Grail of this text. Therefore we had no scope to rewrite it to allow unapproved poison pill action. But we did achieve a deal on Article 9: we forced the Commission and the Council to freeze the article and to have a group of company law experts to examine key issues, and to come back to Parliament in March 2002. This also includes – as the Commissioner can confirm – the possibility of reviewing Article 9 in the light of the findings of that group. The entry into force of this directive is therefore postponed and Member States can postpone compliance with Article 9 until 2006. My delegation will vote for this directive. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, according to Amnesty International, there are still 142 countries which ride roughshod over human rights, ranging from excessive police violence to tortures and killings. This sober fact overshadows, I believe, the unmistakably positive developments in some countries. More than anything, it places in perspective the memorable fact that an increasing number of countries are abolishing the death penalty and are signing major human rights treaties. Never before has so much lip service been paid to human rights. Never before has there been so much verbal condemnation without being followed up by sanctions. Human rights violations are a blot on our civilisation, impunity even more so. Nevertheless, we see, thinking of Rwanda for example, that the law is very slow in catching up with those responsible for the most gruesome violations of human integrity – if it does so at all. As such, impunity causes more violations. The truth is that human rights are still too often subordinated to commercial and other interests of Member States. Unfortunately, there is no common strategy as yet. This partly explains why we are so often overtaken by events. Why did disaster have to strike East Timor, Kosovo and Rwanda first before something was done? The international community often watches helplessly. Our policy for human rights should be credible. There is no room for double standards. China and – to a lesser extent Russia – often remain out of harm’s way a lot longer than certain African regimes. Some will term this selectivity. I prefer to call it opportunism and a lack of courage. The present report, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the first of its kind, deserves all credit and is a first step towards a consistent and coherent human rights policy to which the Council, Commission and Parliament, in a joint effort, should give their all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement has been a turning-point in Europe’s history, and we have experienced it at first hand. Enlargement took place against a backdrop of uncertainties about the international situation, security problems, and problems with the preservation of social and environmental models common to us all. All of these are urgent issues that we must address. Although enlargement has a political vocation, it must also be a source of impetus and growth. We all want the EU to prosper for the sake of its 450 million consumers; we all want a dynamic EU, one founded upon solidarity. If we are to have one, we must do everything possible to encourage sustainable growth through performance and competitiveness, which presupposes action on several different fronts. It presupposes that we sustain and promote our successful businesses, our centres of excellence and develop our high-tech industries. It presupposes that we step up our investment effort, for when the European Union has a euro in hand, that euro must not merely be spent; it must be invested in order to encourage innovation, develop research, maintain our SMEs, and encourage businesses to be handed on. It presupposes that the euro should be accompanied by better coordination of economic and social policies, for there is a real need in Europe for economic governance in permanent dialogue with the Central Bank, and also that we review the Stability and Growth Pact, which must be tougher than 3% in periods of growth, but also slightly more flexible when the economy slows down. The Europe that we want must not be guided by economic interests alone, but also by values of social progress and full employment. If we are to restore Europe’s credibility in the eyes of our fellow citizens, we have to make it a social Europe with more of a dimension of solidarity. The European model that we want to build is founded upon values of humanism, liberty and solidarity, which solidarity is the result of economic growth, ensuring a satisfactory level of pensions, the protection of the weakest, promotion of the rights of workers and of the family. If asked to sum up in one word my view of the social Europe, I would say it was the Europe of employment. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is the last time that I, as rapporteur of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment, together with Mr Ettl, can pass judgment on the preparations of the candidate Member States in the social field. I have to say that all those countries have made unbelievable efforts to make progress in the social sphere on various fronts. They have a number of trump cards which they can play and about which far too little is known, certainly in our countries, where people often think that the new Member States are still at an early stage of development. Needless to say, that is not the case. For example, the population is very well educated: 88% of 20 to 24-year-olds have at least attended higher education. That is more than in the 15 current Member States, where this figure is 74%. Moreover, the population in the ten new countries is younger than in the 15 current Member States. The phenomenon of an ageing population will therefore take a little longer to make its presence felt. In short, those countries have great potential in terms of human resources. Utilising this potential to the full should be high on the agenda. At present, human resources are still deployed insufficiently. Unemployment in the acceding countries is high and opportunities for employment low. Of the population of working age, 14.3% are unemployed, as against 8% in the European Union. Unemployment among young people under the age of 25 has taken on tragic proportions: at 32%, it is twice that of the European Union. An extreme case is Poland, where youth unemployment is 41%. Moreover, in seven of the ten candidate Member States, youth unemployment in 2003 rose compared to the year before. It is therefore obvious that those countries, in accordance with the European employment strategy, should develop active and sustainable employment policy. Lifelong learning should keep workers deployable within the changing labour market. The number of people between 25 and 65 who attended courses in 2002 is 5% compared to 8% in the European Union and there is also the risk of a brain drain of highly-qualified staff. Another point is health and safety at work. Some countries prefer to provide higher wages at the expense of health and safety provisions on the shop floor. Purchasing power and pre-tax income are far below the EU average, but they have increased – even considerably – while they fell in our countries. This amounts to a simply outstanding achievement. A big problem, however, is that wages remain too low to enable people to escape poverty. Poverty in the ten countries concerned affects 40% of the working population. Social security should be developed more effectively. Social partners should be organised more effectively because at the moment, they still have insufficient organisational power to be able to really organise social negotiations in the countries concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of asylum has come to occupy a prominent place on the political agenda of the European Union and of its Member States, especially following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which conferred new competences on the Community, opening up new possibilities for action on a European scale. The proposal that we are debating here today is part of the dynamic of establishing a common European asylum system based on the full and broad application of the Geneva Convention, which is intended to create a clear, more simple and workable method, for determining which State is responsible for examining an application for asylum submitted in a Member State by a third-country national in the context of an asylum process that is intended to be fair and effective. The proposal lays down innovative provisions that are designed to end a process that has proven to be extremely slow, by stipulating shorter deadlines for procedures and making them more effective by improving cooperation between Member States, attempting in this way to create a system that is fair and humane for asylum seekers, which is of the utmost importance, not only for asylum seekers but also for the Member States themselves. Also by creating a uniform set of regulations, directly applicable throughout the European Union, thereby guaranteeing that each and every request for asylum is actually examined, and at the same time preventing multiple applications being made in a number of States. I welcome the efforts made by the rapporteur, Luís Marinho and by Eva Klamt, who have sought to produce a text that is balanced and which fulfils the stated objective. What is needed now is for us all to work together to prevent woolly amendments being adopted that could negate the balance of the text reached in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners, President-in-Office of the Council, my greatest sympathy at this time is with the families badly hit or otherwise affected in the disaster-struck areas. Respect and admiration are also in order for the huge response to the disaster and for the way in which thousands of people stood shoulder to shoulder in combating the masses of water. It was unprecedented. There must be no doubt that the EU Member States should pull together in dealing with a disaster like this. It is therefore important to remember that aid is twice as valuable when it is offered promptly. I would also draw attention to the fact that many people are looking to see how we help the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic is a candidate country, and it is therefore very important that we deal with it in such a way that it, and thus the other candidate countries too, feel secure. I would finally draw attention to the fact that agriculture in the affected areas is suffering losses twice over: firstly, this autumn’s harvest of coarse fodder has been lost and, secondly, the harvest of sown winter crops will not be ready for next year. I would therefore very much urge that there be no doubt about the fact that the losses sustained by agriculture in particular will be spread over at least two accounting years.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the conciliation has been quite difficult. This has to do with the fact that the subject is itself both extensive and technically very complicated. It also has to do with the fact that the positions of Parliament and the Council were far apart when the conciliation began. The fact that the result has turned out as well as it has is largely due to the tireless and committed work done by the rapporteur, Mrs Lienemann, whom we wish to thank. The directive could, of course, have been still better and beefed up even more, for example as far as the timetables are concerned. That would have been desirable. Yet, it is obvious that the European Parliament has gained most and that the Council has had to give most ground in the negociations that have taken place. The clearest proof of this is that the rules are binding, something which Parliament had demanded. In certain respects the directive forms a framework whose contents are still unclear. This is especially true in the case of the phasing-out of dangerous substances. This is an issue upon which further work will be done in the daughter directives. Crucial to how the directive will operate is the question of how it will be implemented and monitored. All in all, the foundations have been laid for a coherent water policy and for long-term improvements in water quality. We shall therefore be happy to vote in favour of the proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Madam President, last night two requests were referred to my committee under Rule 112. These relate to re-consultation on two framework decisions from the Council, one on combating terrorism, the other on a proposal for a European arrest warrant. We were asked to treat these as a matter of urgency. My committee met this morning and agreed to propose to the plenary that we agree to urgency for these texts as submitted without report.

Political group: ELDR