GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Socrates programme is not just a system of educational exchanges. It is a tool for moulding young people and imposing a certain educational model. The basic problem of education, by which I mean a general curriculum for young people, falls outside the scope of the programme. On the contrary, its purpose is to manipulate pupils, students and teachers in order to establish the European one-way system and make it easier to subjugate young people to the policy of the European Union, to the rules of the market economy and to so-called new working conditions. The European education area is a front for converging education systems by tailoring them to the requirements of big business and the last thing that does is to improve education overall. Even educational exchanges and the system for providing lessons operate as a lever in this direction. The first thing we need to do, if we really want to improve education systems, is to stop the European Union from interfering. In the final analysis, this is a matter for the grass-roots movement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, following 11 September this Parliament worked quickly and very seriously supporting the Commission and calling on the Council for a series of measures to confront terrorism. The Union's institutions worked efficiently to achieve a common definition of the crime of terrorism and to achieve and implement the European arrest warrant. In this and other Community institutions great statements were made in favour of better police cooperation, a strengthening of the task force of police chiefs, an operative Europol under effective judicial control; furthermore, efforts were made to achieve the establishment of minimum judicial guarantees and, finally, to create a framework providing us with greater security and speed in situations such as the one which had arisen in the United States. Furthermore, this happened during the debate on the new Constitution, which was creating a framework providing significant opportunities to improve the legal area for police and judicial cooperation and to subject it to the essential parliamentary control. But the moment passed and the measures proposed only moved forward by inertia, at a pace, Mr President, which has not yet taken us anywhere. We have had to experience the recent horror in order to return to this issue in formal session, on a Wednesday morning. Mr President, on 11 March we all had a sad role to play. If there is one thing the citizens expected from us it was cooperation in order to offer certainty, and what we displayed, for various reasons, and with differing degrees of responsibility, was complete confusion. The European Commission is right to say that we do not need new ideas. We only need to implement those which are on the table, which are already boring and hackneyed. Even so we have succumbed to the temptation for a new one and we have created a ‘Mr Terrorism’, and I do not know what he will do unless we improve the global framework of mutual trust. Europe can and must act differently. We do not need a European Patriot Act. We can and must offer more security on the basis of mutual trust and close cooperation while strictly respecting the freedoms and rights that terrorism aims to destroy. I hope that the next time we talk about this we are not still drying our tears, but that we have a firm will to face up to today’s world. A world in which Europe, working to promote internal cooperation, can also offer a path and a guide in order – within the framework of the United Nations and multilateral action – to deal with the significant dangers we are facing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, only a small proportion of Israeli exports come from the settlements. The figure is definitely under 5%. All the attention paid to this issue reflects the strong anti-Israeli sentiments of certain speakers. It is important to set the debate in context and bear in mind that the Oslo accords provide for unified customs arrangements. The real question, therefore, is whether certain products are to be identified in a particular way. The Israelis seem ready to accept this. Negotiations leading to an arrangement of this type will certainly resolve this problem, which is actually a relatively minor one. Regarding the establishment of a special category, I believe that 60 years after the liberation of Europe, we must still guard against imposing a new yellow Star of David, even if it is only to apply to goods.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I really have to say I am very unhappy with this old-fashioned reply, which is totally irrelevant to the age we live in. First of all, mobile communications are by their nature cross-border communications. Their content are products offered by different media companies and they therefore move along the borders of the European Union. This is the roaming policy. One cannot avoid the issue with answers like this. On the contrary, these companies are so big that they operate beyond Europe, offering content that is in a very limited number of hands. I could name such companies but the Commissioner might be able to think of some of them himself. This is a modern day threat, and it is not merely a matter of printed communications. What position are you going to take on this modern form of communications so that you might address the problem?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is my responsibility, on behalf of the competent committee in this area, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to draw up the report on the state of progress of the Galileo programme and the integration of the EGNOS programme into the Galileo programme. The first discussion within the competent committee, the ITRE committee, will take place on 21 May and the report will be discussed in plenary in November. Given the problems you have highlighted, Commissioner, I would like, if I may, to speak on behalf of the ITRE Committee and the Group of the to remind us all of the timetable for implementing Galileo: autumn 2002, the Galileo Joint Undertaking becomes operative; end of 2002, Commission report to the Council on the integration of the EGNOS programme into the Galileo programme and the concession model; December 2002, Council decision on the services provided by Galileo and the frequency service plan; July 2003, World Radiocommunications Conference; summer 2003, Commission proposal to the Council on the creation of the future security body; autumn 2003, Commission report to the Council on the preselection of the future concessionaire; end of 2004, launch of the first experimental satellite. If we want to adhere to this timetable, we now urgently need to overcome the impasse that has arisen within the ESA, where the Member States are divided over the importance each has in the programme. It is understandable that the Member States concerned want to have their say, but it is rather a nuisance, since, for the sake of 1% or 2% of their participation, we are in danger of considerably delaying the implementation of this project, which genuinely has a European dimension. We are aware of the need for technology that is equivalent to or better than GPS. As we saw with Commissioner Busquin, substantial research has been carried out with a view to achieving extraordinary technology, which will be even better than GPS technology. It will comprise environmental applications, which will also be essential. We in the Group of the feel strongly that the project should be transparent, and we do not want it to be carried out in haste because of a delay. We are extremely concerned that the Galileo project should have civil, rather than military, applications. We therefore consider that it should be implemented swiftly. More than 200 Members of Parliament signed a motion in April against a delay and in favour of speeding up the implementation of the project. I would be grateful, Commissioner, if you could do all you can to ensure that progress is made in this direction and to overcome the impasse as swiftly as possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
If we had had the opportunity to devise the Rules of Procedure and the interinstitutional agreement on our own, we should have tried to create an open and simple administration, for that is the best kind of administration for the purposes of discovering irregularities and acts of fraud. We should also like to point out that the freedom to provide information which we have in Sweden for civil servants is also a good way of preventing illegal occurrences from being swept under the carpet. In the situation which has now arisen, we have chosen to vote in favour of the report as a whole in the final vote, for to vote against it could be interpreted in terms of our not wanting to regulate the fight against fraud at all.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, these proposals for the training of heavy goods vehicle drivers are, like much of the legislation adopted by this House, totally unnecessary. All we need is the mutual recognition of national qualifications, possibly underpinned by a loose framework directive, to ensure minimum standards, especially with regard to third-country nationals. However, what we have is a typical piece of EU legislation: intrusive, prescriptive, vastly expensive. It is a Christmas tree on which we have hung our wish list of expensive baubles. Environmental issues are important, but they have no bearing on the ability to drive a truck. The proposals for training on a healthy diet have already attracted widespread ridicule in the British press. Asking the British trucker to give up his sausage and eggs is like inviting the Pope to a disco – it simply makes us look absurd. But we are inviting worse than ridicule. In the UK alone these proposals are estimated by the industry to cost over EUR 200m a year in a business already under great stress. The time commitment for training required of the individual owner-operator is unsustainable and will drive hundreds out of business. In this House we constantly pay lip service to the needs of SMEs, yet again and again we ignore their concerns. We talk about the problem of unemployment, then we pass directives that destroy jobs. These proposals form part of a concerted attack by the Commission on the road haulage industry. I should declare an interest: my stepson is a truck driver and he and his colleagues are aghast at these proposals. I have studied them in vain for a realistic business impact assessment. We are looking at huge costs, huge damage to the industry – especially to small businesses – and huge damage to European competitiveness. A further impediment to the achievement of the Lisbon objectives, and all for what? For benefits which at best are vague and speculative. I urge colleagues to reject the Grosch report. Let us stand back for a moment and consider the huge damage we do as we create a torrent of onerous and unnecessary legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the situation in Côte d'Ivoire continues to deteriorate. We have condemned the concept of ‘ivoirity’, which has tainted the electoral legitimacy of Laurent Gbagbo, but we have also condemned the military rebellion, which is unacceptable in a democracy. We were sceptical about the signing of the Marcoussis peace agreement, which showed every sign of having been dictated by the former colonial power. As might have been expected, it was not viable and led to the resignation, in September, of the rebel ministers in the government of national reconciliation. Although progress has been made in recent months, new confrontations over the last fortnight have weakened the chances of relaunching the peace process. Now, the violence in the north, as well as in the cocoa belt, and the abuses by the so-called patriotic forces are leading to ever-increasing human rights violations. We request that these cease without delay and that the government and the rebel forces stop exploiting demonstrations which, in reality, are not at all spontaneous. We demand that investigation procedures be put in place to punish those responsible for the abuses. We condemn just as vigorously the assassination of the French journalist Jean Hélène, and we ask that an international inquiry be set up in order to bring those responsible to justice. We call for genuine negotiations to be resumed with a view to bringing the conflict to an end. It is only by taking account of all the political forces in the country and of the balance between these forces that it will be possible to find a peaceful and democratic solution, leading to the relaunch of a peace process that must include the disarmament of the militias, together with free legislative and presidential general elections under international supervision. If this is to be achieved, the European Union’s policy of prevention must tackle the structural causes, that is to say poverty, the unequal distribution of wealth, social injustice, the oppression of minorities and the disorganisation of the state. Alongside this, the EU must adopt a coherent trade and development policy in order to guarantee aid to the African economies and, in particular, to the African population. In this context, we call upon the Commission not to extend the fisheries agreement with Côte d'Ivoire for as long as implementation of development cooperation within the framework of the Cotonou agreements remains suspended. To conclude, we would signal our commitment to respect for minorities, which is an indispensable basis for the peaceful settlement of these conflicts in Africa.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, congratulations to the rapporteur, who has achieved a quite remarkable level of consensus right across this House. That consensus is leading to the joint initiative he mentioned, which we shall be announcing tomorrow. This is unusually good working together. Thank you, too, to the Commissioner, who works within the limits of a very inadequate Treaty. There is no energy chapter in the Treaty. This is a big gap and we must continue to put pressure on Member States if we want a coherent policy. That is what disappoints me about this action plan. It does not seem to be part of a coherent energy policy with short-term, medium-term and long-term strategies. It is a piecemeal approach in which the emphasis varies according to the publication. The case for energy efficiency is clear and unanswerable. It meets all three requisites of an energy policy: environmental impact, security of supply and competitiveness. All are helped by energy efficiency. So if this is so self-evident, the obvious question is why do we need an action plan? Why is this not happening automatically? We know what the barriers are to accepting such a common sense solution. Ignorance of the facts, particularly at household and small firm level. Lack of incentive – energy in the European Union is artificially cheap because of the subsidies for the conventional forms of energy, which are often denied but certainly there, and the failure to take on board the external costs. In many Member States, there is no requirement to even look at demand site management. Commissioner, what has happened to the rational planning directive? Please bring it forward again. It has not finished its journey through the legislative process. Transport is, of course, a particularly difficult area and action is needed. This action plan of the Commission's is unambitious. A 1% per annum improvement would be very easy to achieve. We need at least 2.5%; that is attainable. We want to give serious consideration to the setting up of an energy programme agency with the task of producing the coherent energy strategy I mentioned. We can look at energy appliances. However, I am dubious about voluntary agreements. The Sixth Framework Programme gives us an opportunity to look at research and I hope that tomorrow, Commissioner, you will join with us in looking forward to a more intelligent use of energy in the European Union.

Political group: PSE
I strongly support this excellent report by Timothy Kirkhope which calls for a framework decision on setting up joint investigation teams. This decision opens the way for the full implementation of the EU convention which calls for mutual assistance in criminal matters. Police cooperation at EU level is a relatively new and innovative idea. Without cooperation in these kinds of matters, individual Member States cannot hope to solve and combat the new kinds of crime that presently face all Member State police forces. In addition, the report calls for joint investigation teams which should be available not only to combat drugs trafficking and human beings, but also to ward off organised crime. Once joint investigations really take off and Member States come to fully realise their effectiveness, their remit could and should widen to include these kinds of issues. Finally, as the report indicates, there is a real and valid role for the European Parliament in matters pertaining to joint police initiatives. The call for some kind of review mechanism, whereby the Council accounts for and reports to the European Parliament on the effectiveness of joint initiatives, will make this process more open and transparent and therefore more legitimate. - Marinho report (A-0371/2001) Fatuzzo . – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the Marinho report because it provides for the mutual recognition of court sentences and decisions on the implementation of the Schengen acquis. However, as a representative of the Pensioners’ Party, I am not in favour of the mutual recognition of decisions. This is not something which furthers European integration: we need common rules in both civil and criminal law. If we do not achieve this but are content just to implement mutual recognition of decisions, we will be taking a step backwards in the practical integration of Europe. We will only have a Europe which is genuinely fully functional when we move on from the mutual recognition of decisions to common rules which are the same throughout the European Union. Then there will be no need to recognise the decisions of other States because the decisions of each Member State will be the decisions of all the States. Vander Taelen report (A5-0351/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I support the political line and all the proposals in the Bullmann and Gasòliba i Böhm reports. They highlight some of the qualitative goals which ought to be turned into binding decisions at the Spring European Council. Amongst these I would like to stress the importance of certain initiatives relating to sectors central to the Lisbon and Feira Council guidelines, but where progress is still much too slow, as President Prodi recognised in his speech yesterday. The most important is coordination of research and development policies. While the European Commission has set up some highly significant European initiatives and projects in this area, there is still a lack of effective coordination of national programmes and public and private projects developed by each country. This leads to a situation where meagre national financial resources are often spent on duplication or wasted investment, and where there is a failure to adopt certain shared priorities. I would like to ask the Commission whether or not it intends to give effective impetus to the implementation of the open method of coordination, adopted by the Lisbon Council. It can work if the Commission uses its knowledge of existing national programmes and projects to become the promoter and monitor of open methods of cooperation between certain Member States on specific priorities, thus testing national governments’ willingness to cooperate and converge to build a European Research Area. Secondly, the introduction in the Union – also based on some experiments in open coordination – of a system of lifelong learning and training. We are right to call, in Mr Bullmann’s report too, for a combination of flexibility, mobility and security in employment policy, to prevent the emergence of insecurity and marginalisation of both young people and women and older workers as well. Now, I do not know of any kind of security that can operate in a labour market characterised by flexibility and mobility, apart from the security that comes from employability, a process of lifelong learning and training guarantees. Setting up a system like that to benefit as many working men and women as possible will overcome the resistance developing in various sectors, because the temporary nature of jobs – and that is a very real factor in our labour market – deters companies from investing in human resources. All this means mobilising major resources and great individual determination, which can only happen if effective cooperation is established between the European Union and the national States, on the one hand, and between businesses and workers, on the other. That is also a way to create the necessary conditions for the Spring Council to be a significant event ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to begin by welcoming the report and congratulating the rapporteur. I think we all recognise the tremendous difficulty involved in coming forward with this report. There are probably things in it that not everyone likes. However, in the circumstances it is probably the best that could be achieved as we try to reform the CFP. We have to ask ourselves what the European Union wants to achieve in reforming of the common fisheries policy. The one thing we can say for certain is that the present common fisheries policy is not one of the best-loved policies of the Union, and there is certainly no guarantee that future changes will endear any future policy to the industry, especially given the pressure on fish stocks and the differing views of scientists and fishermen. However, the opportunity is there to be seized and we have to ask whether we can get things right this time. Can we achieve a proper balance? Are we in a position to respond to the needs of the industry and respond in time? The problems of the industry have built up a great degree of resentment. We have heard here today that there are those who would love to scrap the common fisheries policy and hand it back to national and regional governments. That will not put any more fish in the sea or solve any more problems. Fish are migratory: they do not stay in one place all the time, year after year. So while such a move sounds easy – and to some it sounds very good – we have to ask a number of questions. Would renationalisation mean any more fish? I do not think so. Would it mean more financial support? I would suggest that it might result in even less financial support to the industry, and markets would not improve. So we have to find an acceptable position. I have to say bluntly to the Commission that if it cannot get the policy right in the next four to five years, then it will be forced to hand it back to national governments. We have an opportunity to get it right. The Commission has to involve local fishermen, local areas and local people if it really wants to get it right. I would certainly support that – but there has to be meaningful consultation.

Political group: PPE-DE