GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, last year the Council took an excellent initiative to create the first European Union forum on human rights. This excellent initiative was repeated this year and the second forum will be held on 12 and 13 December in Paris, which is to say at the same time as the European Parliament’s part-session in Strasbourg. This is, at the very least, poor manners with regard to the European Parliament, if not an outright snub, and, allowing for the possibility that the Members of the European Parliament have nothing to say about human rights, even though they have voted, by a very large majority, in favour of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, they will be absent from this European Union forum which many of them attended last year in order to debate with NGOs and institutions. I would therefore urge that, in response, our official representatives are not sent to this forum, and that, next year, a date should be agreed when Members of Parliament may attend, which means the dates of the Strasbourg sittings should be avoided when scheduling this important meeting.

Political group: PPE-DE
In the light of the horrific tragedy which occurred in Moscow and the horrific tragedy which has been going on for years in Chechnya, we feel it is necessary, on the eve of the EU-Russia Summit, in the presence of the Commission and of Mr Solana, to include a debate on Chechnya in our debates on foreign policy, as there are questions that we wish to raise with Russia regarding the massacres that have been carried out in Chechnya and regarding the lack of information Russian citizens were given following the horrific, tragic hostage-taking. We therefore call for this item to be officially placed on the agenda and to be raised during the debates with the Commission and Mr Solana.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I understand that because of time, the President-in-Office is not answering. For many groups there was serious concern about armaments in the Balkans and the non-disarmament there. I hope that, even if the President-in-Office of the Council cannot answer now, he will take the concerns of all the groups very seriously and bring them before the Council of Ministers. This is a permanent and not just a local problem. IN THE CHAIR: MRS FONTAINEPresident

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, Mr President, the main aim of the report that we are discussing this evening is to provide asylum seekers with a minimum level of protection in all the Member States and to reduce the differences in legislation and the practices of the Member States in this area. This is essential. Some Members are criticising efforts to bring into line the status of refugee and that of beneficiary of subsidiary protection. Subsidiary protection exists, however, to bridge the gaps found in some interpretations of the Geneva Convention, under which a refugee is defined as a person persecuted by a government. Yet we know that some refugees who are not, strictly speaking, persecuted by their government, are, in fact, in real danger and in genuine need of our help. The needs of all those requiring international protection are, by and large, the same. This is precisely the area the committee worked on to have amended in the proposal for a directive and I believe this has been done in a very constructive manner. As an improvement, it is proposed that refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection enjoy the same rights with regard to the granting and the length of the residence permit, access to employment, possibilities of vocational training and access to integration facilities. It is undeniable that access to employment encourages people to acquire greater autonomy and enables those concerned to support themselves and thus, to live without the assistance provided by the host country. It is obvious that minors benefiting from international protection must have full access to the state education system; this is an obvious fact recognised in several international conventions. We believe that it is dangerous to fail to protect minors, to fail to educate them, to fail to give them the minimum they need to be able to live together. We welcome the new definition of the term family members, which is both wider and more accurate, and we stress the possibility of family reunion that is introduced in the proposal. Similarly, we welcome the fact that the rejection of refugee status, and its withdrawal, is more clearly defined. We are pleased to note that the persons who are persecuted for their sexual orientation, for their state of health, who suffer corporal punishment or genital mutilation are protected. I now urge the majority of forward-thinking, humanist Members, who are often a credit to Parliament, to reject the amendments which could completely change the nature of this report and to send a clear signal to the Council. Ladies and gentlemen, by voting in favour of the Lambert Report tomorrow, we shall be responding to an expectation of our peoples. Whoever votes against this text tomorrow can no longer claim to truly condemn the current reception conditions which are not worthy of humanity, which are not worthy of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
If we are to pursue a responsible policy we must concern ourselves with the health of Europeans, particularly the youngest among them. Therefore, we need to be very vigilant in face of the rising alcohol consumption by children and adolescents. That is why I voted for this recommendation of the European Parliament, which calls on the Member States to take measures to protect young people. Action should therefore be taken in the European Community countries to raise public awareness of the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption and persuade children, adolescents, but also parents, to be more responsible for their actions. Children and adolescents are particularly receptive to the messages transmitted to them and the appropriate educational action could therefore produce practical results. We must remember that young people are the main victims of the murderous road accidents caused by alcohol abuse. Furthermore, if the appropriate messages were disseminated to make even the youngest children aware of the dangers of excess alcohol consumption, that could prevent some of the tragedies we have seen. At the same time, we have to distinguish between different drinks. We know, for example, that the moderate consumption of wine can have beneficial effects on health. That is why we certainly do not wish to condemn the producers. Our aim is to put a stop to the excessive consumption of alcoholic drinks among young people. Yet the producers do have a role to play. They should not target their commercial and advertising campaigns specifically at adolescents. We know what an impact these campaigns can have on young people, so this temptation must be suppressed in favour of preventive measures. Lastly, we should give some thought to whether it might prove effective to affix warning labels to the products, as France is doing in relation to advertising.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Patten, I should like to thank you for your statements, especially Commissioner Patten, whose analysis I fully share and I shall not, therefore, repeat any of his ideas. I should just like to make three comments which Commissioner Patten will perhaps see as similar but which, for various reasons, a Member can formulate more openly. First, I believe that we can welcome the agreement between Israel and the Palestinian authorities. But we have enough agreements now: Oslo, Wye Plantation, Sharm el-Sheikh. We have enough agreements; they just need to be implemented. However, in this regard I share Mr Salafranca’s scepticism when he says that there has been bad news from Israel this week, namely that the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum cannot be implemented within the set timeframe. My second point concerns the resumption of negotiations between Syria and Israel. I consider this to be very encouraging news. But we have also learned this week that Mr Barak will not be travelling to Washington and that the negotiations cannot therefore be continued. I should like to make it quite clear: if the Golan Heights are returned to Syria, the problem in this region will be solved. On the question of the referendum which various Members have referred to: we must consider if a referendum always needs to be held in order to honour obligations under international law and under the law of nations. In Germany, there would probably be dancing in the streets if we were to say that we were holding a referendum on payments to the European Union and we shall pay if the German people are prepared to pay. That would be a similar situation. My third and last point concerns the role of the European Union. I should really like to stress the excellent role which Mr Moratinos’ special mission has played in the region and the funding which we have provided there, Commissioner Patten. You know that you will always have our support here in Parliament, and that includes your proposal, and we shall be behind you when the time comes to finance it. But we must also play a political role and Mr Moratinos cannot play that role in this region on his own; the Presidency of the Council must take action, the EU High Representative for common foreign and security policy must travel to the region and we must do as the Russians did and invite the protagonists of the peace process ourselves. Then we will have played the role which is commensurate with our participation and our contribution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, within the framework of the reform of the CFP which the Commission has decided to present to us in small doses, today we are debating the reports on the ‘guideline’ document and the protection of the environment. I would like to congratulate Mr Souchet on his excellent work because the environment is a fundamental aspect of the CFP, and fishing is the sector most affected by the attacks on the marine environment, as highlighted by the oil slick that is currently threatening the coasts of my region, Galicia. We know little about the sea and the fragile situation of the resources cannot be explained entirely by over-fishing, as Mr Souchet has rightly said and as the oil slick caused off the coasts of Galicia by the oil tanker Prestige dramatically demonstrates. I would like to believe that the fishermen and shellfishermen of my region are not going to face this terrible situation alone, but that Europe is going to show solidarity with them and that the European Commission will fully support them. And I would like to say to the Commission that, since it presented these proposals in May, it has received sufficient messages from this Parliament, from the Council and from the sector to redirect this reform in a different way, bearing in mind that it will always have to be gradual, be provided with sufficient resources and be agreed with the sector, with the Member States and with this House. I believe that the Commission is hearing this message. It is a shame that in May, on presenting its proposals for the reform of the CFP, the Commission should have ignored the resolution approved by this Parliament in January on the Green Paper, in which this House urged it to present a proposal for reform to create a sustainable and more Community-focused CFP, in opposition to attempts at renationalisation; a CFP that is fairer, eliminating the discrimination against certain fleets, showing more solidarity and supporting regions dependent on fishing, basically by means of Community co-funding of the restructuring of the fleet.

Political group: PSE
The size and breadth of the problems raised by enlargement are incompatible with the duplicitous language that has been used about it within the European Union. It is in fact totally unacceptable that doors should have been opened and that candidate countries should have been given false expectations, while at the same time, with the aim of effectively postponing enlargement, an insurmountable tangle of difficulties and conditions should now be put in the way of its implementation, or obstacles should be raised that have been known about since the beginning, to the extent that proposals have already been put forward to analyse the costs of non-enlargement. We, for our part, have always stood by the logic of truth, however hard it may be to accept. That is why, even though we do not object to enlargement in principle, we have always argued right from the start that a definitive position on this will depend on the conditions in which it actually takes place. We say this because we have never ignored the fact that obstacles to its implementation would arise at all sorts of levels, and it is true and inevitable that to overcome them will require strong political willpower, new financial means, and above all a thorough analysis of its effects both on the current Member States and on the candidate countries, particularly at the institutional, economic, financial and social levels. By way of example, let me repeat that it will not be acceptable to us if it takes place at the expense of the less highly-developed Member States – as suggested by the failure to review the financial perspective – or if it entails an institutional change such as the one that some people are advocating.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have a request to put to the Presidency. If my information is correct, the European Parliament has invited all the previous winners of the Sakharov Prize to Strasbourg to attend the parliamentary sitting. Would the Presidency of Parliament send an official letter to the Turkish Government to ask them to issue a special pass to Mrs Zana ...

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, the failure of the draft constitution has obscured the fact that a number of positive decisions were taken at the Brussels summit, on such matters as, for example, the European security strategy. How, though, is such a strategy meant to be implemented if both the common political will for it and common institutions – such as a European foreign minister – are absent? Today, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have declared, and rightly, that we are in a very, very precarious position as regards competition with the United States of America and with Asia, and you also referred to the state of affairs in the Far East, which amounts almost to anarchy. You were right to do so; how are we to compete successfully with them without a common will and common institutions, if we do not join together as Europeans in, for example, ensuring that Kyoto is implemented as a whole? Already, I hear many European industrialists saying, ‘We cannot be the only ones to implement Kyoto, or we will lose our competitive edge.’ That is only possible provided that a minimum of social and human rights is enforced, along with protection for the environment, provided that this shared constitutional Europe comes into being. The capacity of common purpose to accomplish something has been demonstrated by the way in which the Americans have dispensed with steel tariffs. If Europe acts together and presents a united front, we too have the opportunity and the capacity to get things done together. This leads me to agree wholeheartedly with Mr Poettering that we need a European constitution as a symbol and as an instrument if we are to make this common purpose a reality on the global stage too. It is for that reason that I do not see the creation, at this point in time, of a core Europe as a way out. I might add that it is generally not the core of a fruit that is interesting, but its pulp, so creating a smaller core Europe is not a way out. Instead, Europe must be great, and we must hold it in common. If a few are unwilling to join in, then we have to consider how we are to achieve this constitutional Europe, this Europe in which as many as possible can share and which is open to all. What this means is that both the Italian and Irish Presidencies of the Council must now carry the message that we have to work in order to bring about a common Europe with a common constitution and with as many Member States as possible. We must not allow our vision to fade away, nor must we, under any circumstances, abandon a common Europe with a common constitution! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that everyone is agreed that fundamentalism has an extremely negative effect on the emancipation process of women. It is a source of violation of human and women’s rights and fundamental freedoms, as enshrined in the international treaties and conventions, and exercises its baleful influence not only directly, but also via religious rules, cultural characteristics, customs, political campaigns and social standards. Women’s rights are human rights, and this must form the basis of our actions. As I see it, and as we hear, women wish to accentuate the equal qualities of, and not the differences between, people. Let us transcend our religious differences in order to achieve a more humane world, preferably without violence. How many wars and how much violence find their improper origins in religious intolerance, often fed by political interests rather than religious perception? The unnecessary, pointless violence between Muslims and Hindus in India serves as a recent example of this. It would be a major credit to this report if, thanks to the suggestions mentioned in it, an extreme danger of fundamentalism, namely the suffering of women and girls in Afghanistan, were turned into an example of how things can be changed. Allow me to explain. In the report, we asked the Council, the Member States and the Commission to take a joint initiative to send a special group of observers, specialised in gender equality, to Afghanistan to ensure that women’s rights, as enshrined in international agreements and Treaties, are observed, and that aid and reconstruction policy takes sufficient account of the gender equality issues. In this way, the tragedy caused by the Taliban, as well as the solution to it, can be used in the fight against other forms of fundamentalism. This report is also praiseworthy for the fact that it expresses the wish that in the future directive on procedures for granting asylum in the Member States, account should be taken of various forms of female persecution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this so-called compromise amendment was submitted to us late last night and then despatched this morning, initially – and inadvertently – with our name. That was then revised. I think it is wrong to vote on such a technical text at such short notice, which is why I have serious reservations about voting on it now.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Zappalà, some 10 years ago, I sat on the municipal council in Eindhoven, in the southeast of Brabant, which is a technology region. Philips and Daf were in dire straits. It was a time of high unemployment as a result of all kinds of developments in international industry. In those days, there was a covenant involving industry and the municipality on building in a sustainable manner. There was little employment in the building industry. Then, we discovered that in Groningen, there was a model for European contracts which was able to meet a number of criteria, for example with regard to equal working conditions and social legislation, but also to the regional labour market’s employment criteria and to environmental criteria. We found this valuable and subsequently applied it. This would, to a large extent, be allowed on the basis of the current proposals. However, the problem that is causing anxiety for many is that the , and particularly the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, have accepted a number of amendments on the basis of which it would no longer be possible to spend public funds in this transparent, non-discriminatory way that serves regional causes. We are talking about socially responsible entrepreneurship to ensure that financial, social and environmental objectives are integrated into a strategic policy. We should, however, be fighting for socially responsible government even more than for socially responsible entrepreneurship. We could then, if we take transparency into account, also avoid the likelihood of fraud. In other words, we agree to a number of the objectives that Mr Bolkestein mentioned, such as legal certainty and effective spending, but integral policy means that we should also include a number of other criteria, and that is what, in my view, we should vote for tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE