GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we get the impression from some of the discussions on the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that the family is becoming a politically incorrect concept in the European Union, so eager are some groups to dispense with the word. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Council of Europe’s Social Charter and the European Parliament’s resolution on the declaration fundamental rights and freedoms clearly conclude that there is a special need to protect the family. Unfortunately, not everyone sees the matter in this way, and, in my opinion, we can see an unnecessary conflict between the rights of women and those of families, which people try to accommodate by rejecting the family instead of seeking a radically new and egalitarian European policy on the family. This means that family values in society are falling into the wrong, or at least biased, hands. The new right is getting hold of them and using them to capture the moral high ground. That is why the theme is tiresome to so many. However, I believe that it would be a big mistake for the European Parliament to approve of this sort of trend. Families are firmly connected with the European notion of society. Like many others, the want a society where freedom and responsibility meet halfway. I see it as a family society because it is difficult to learn about joint responsibility and solidarity if it is not learnt in a small, close-knit community. Society may be just, but it cannot ever love. Its bosom is too cold and its arm too short. Nevertheless, it is this very love that is a requirement for the healthy development of the individual. And a progressive Charter of Fundamental Rights will be of no use to Europe if the members of its society have no wish to respect them. Social development with that end in sight still takes place in the family. There can thus be no people’s Europe without a family-oriented Europe. Families need recognition, encouragement, freedom of action and protection from social tyranny just the same as individuals do. Family rights and protection that have been provided for in legislation elsewhere in this respect should be reproduced in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. It is an important area and she has rightly drawn attention to it. It refers to the new powers of the Community over the last few years: rights of asylum, immigration and general cooperation in civil matters. It is therefore crucial that we use these powers to improve the position of victims of crime. At the time of the crime, especially personal, physical or violent crime, many victims, if not all, will be vulnerable, distressed, upset, probably angry, and desperately in need of support. As the rapporteur has said, they do not need to become victims again. Nor do they need to feel that they are being branded almost as criminals themselves. We need to ensure – and this report goes a long way towards it – that the procedures do not negate the situation or make it worse, but rather, that they support and assist the victims. The rapporteur has said that we also need to make certain that safeguards are in place so that there is no intrusion into the privacy of victims. We must in particular draw attention to intrusion or possible intrusion by the press. I am particularly pleased that this report includes support in the language or dialect of the victim of crime because sometimes that is an area that is overlooked. Likewise the necessity for training of police officers and others in authority. Ethnic minorities, very often women, children – those who sometimes find the system difficult – will be the ones who are most at risk in this sort of situation. Those who perhaps are in fear of authority are especially vulnerable. The Group is pleased to support this report and to congratulate the rapporteur. However, there will be no surprise that we will reject those amendments that have been put down in the name of certain members of the TDI Group. Those amendments do not improve the report; rather they are a crude attempt to add the biased, distorted and racist sentiment of the signatories concerned. I congratulate the rapporteur on her work. I congratulate the Commission on bringing this forward, and I wish it every success in the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, we shall have experienced a term of office in which the dominant theme has been one of security and safety. There was, of course, the loss of the Erika on 12 November 1999 and even the attack on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, with implications for the maritime risk. There was also the loss of the Prestige, the anniversary of which falls tomorrow, 19 November 2002. These events will certainly lead us to provide ourselves with regulations ranging from prevention to sanctions. The report of our colleague, which I support, leads me to emphasise three points. The first is that the freedom of the seas must be controlled. The sea can no longer be seen as an arena for individual adventure, for it also presents a risk to other people. More careful monitoring and greater discipline are necessary, from the open sea to the port facility. Secondly, the EU must put down firmer roots within the IMO, which is something of a maritime ministry for the whole world, just as, for example, the IMF plays the role of a Ministry of Finance. Among the forty or so members who, I believe, form the management board, a dozen are members of the current or future EU. It would therefore be worth coordinating them better. Otherwise, it will be that much easier to have recourse to flags of convenience. Thirdly and finally, any law must be able to give rise to sanctions. Otherwise, it is sterile and ineffective. The IMO conventions are not in any way binding. I think that action must be taken to ensure that they become so one day and, moreover, efforts must in the same way be made to ensure that the ship’s country of origin takes responsibility for it. As long as that is not done, there will still be gaps in our arrangements. To summarise: controlled freedom on the seas, organised unity in the IMO and legality respected by all. These are three principles that must again be worked on. They mark out the path of maritime security and safety, but the path is still a long one.

Political group: PSE
Thank you for your answer, Commissioner. I am aware of the Marina study. I am very interested in its outcome. It will not report for a while yet, as you said. However, I should like to ask, based on that and the assessment you have already made, what further steps the Commissioner would recommend to control the continued emissions of radionuclides from Sellafield and La Hague. They are the largest man-made radioactive emissions and pollutants and do not pollute just EU Member States but migrate across the globe. Indeed, Norway has complained particularly about the Arctic fishing grounds being affected. What would you recommend as a result of all this assessment and forthcoming studies? You recently visited Ireland – you have your Irish scarf on! You indicated that you are concerned about the emissions from Sellafield. We also have a recent RPII report, which I would recommend the Commission to study. You urged the Irish Government to pursue the issue at EU level instead of simply under the OSPAR. I have also made a complaint. I want to ask you to address that in depth. I have had to engage a lawyer to follow up the fact that this has not been dealt with responsibly over the last couple of years. There has also been a recent departure of a Commission official, Mr Curry, to the board of BNFL. Has the Commission agreed that this is not a conflict of interest?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, many thanks to my colleague, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, for an excellent report which will be of great help in the ongoing referendum campaign in my country. Clearly, the introduction of the euro has been very successful. We have finally obtained a practical common European symbol. The euro is already the world’s second largest currency. It has strengthened European identity and bound the twelve countries together. Even if economic development is shaky, the euro has already shown positive economic advantages, strengthened trade and increased investments for the eurozone countries. One of the aspects, which was also addressed by Mr Berenguer Fuster and which has been discussed in connection with the introduction of the euro, is that of whether there have been price rises and, if so, unfair ones. Eurostat’s statistics clearly show that there was a very small, one-off effect of between 0.1 and 0.2% upon the introduction of the euro. Within some sectors of the economy, or in certain industries, there were, however, significant price rises, particularly in certain countries. The overall effect for those inhabiting the eurozone has, however, been very small. It is good that we should now take up this issue and ask the Commission to investigate it further. One thing we have found is that pro-active consumers and two-currency price labelling have prevented underhand price rises. Let us not, however, be deceived into thinking that the price rises were higher than they in actual fact were, and let us not make use of that argument in debates, either. The big advantage of the euro is, however, that it has provided economic stability in politically and economically very difficult times. In spite of great unrest in the world, partly due to the Iraq war, European currencies have not tossed around on a stormy monetary sea, as in actual fact happened in the nineties. The euro has provided stability and security. That is a fact that should be mentioned more often. This should be emphasised in the discussion of the euro’s advantages and disadvantages, particularly in those EU countries that at present enjoy the stability of the euro without participating fully in the cooperation and so without accepting full responsibility, either.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I have been happy to vote for Mr Pirker's report, seeing that it carries on work that I did in 1998, when we adopted the report – in my name at the time – on eastward enlargement and internal security, which for the first time elaborated the idea of a European Corps of Border Guards. Since then, substantial progress has been made on the part of the Member States by way of the Italian feasibility study, and on the part of the Commission by way of this communication, for which I thank Commissioner Vitorino. This, though, is only the first step in the right direction, and I would like to make it abundantly clear that I am putting the case for our pressing for a truly European border protection force, for a European Corps of Border Guards with a basis in Community law and financed on a Community basis, for anything else would be nothing more than a hotchpotch. As far as the proposed educational institution is concerned, I suggest that resources should be combined and duplication of work avoided by using the Police Academy, also proposed in the 1998 report and already up and running. I believe this would get us on the right track. Crime is organised internationally, and we have to, at long last, organise the combating of crime on a Community and cross-border basis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although some progress has been made in negotiations with the Council, there are still aspects that need to be clarified, studied in detail and improved. One such aspect is the priority 'Global change and ecosystems', given that the fisheries sector was subjected to swingeing budgetary cuts under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, with its budget being reduced from EUR 880 million under the previous programme to only EUR 570 million. It is equally important, however, that we pay full attention to soil, which is also a component of terrestrial ecosystems and a crucial factor in their sustainable development. Soil also constitutes the world’s greatest reserve of biomass and this being the case, its protection in terms of CO2 retention and also so that it can be harnessed in the long term. Hence the importance of engaging in research that seeks to provide a better understanding of the functioning of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Furthermore, it should be noted that enormous pressure is being exerted by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, which are attempting to strengthen their influence over the programme. This could distort the balance of the final version.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Minister has given the right answer. The problem is that the second part of the answer should be to say what she is going to do to make sure that it is implemented. Would she agree that a sign of a civilised society is humane treatment of its animals? In Europe today we still see animals suffering agonies and animals dying in transit as a result of the inhumanity of transport conditions. Too many animals are transported in cramped conditions, without adequate food and water, without opportunities to turn round, to get out, to exercise on their journeys. Eight hours, as she has rightly said, should be the legal limit throughout the European Union for live animal transport. It should be the limit, under the directives; it is not in practice. I ask the President-in-Office of the Council to talk to the Council, talk to the Commission, and say why this is not yet being enforced. Animals are suffering and therefore Europe is not yet a civilised society in this regard.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mainly thanks to the Belgian Presidency, the discussion on the future of Europe has been broadened to involve MEPs and it is becoming a public discussion. This is to be welcomed, but there is also a considerable risk of the Convention acquiring Babel-like features, because it is open to all topics and all opinions. In their Laeken Declaration, the Heads of Government have chosen fine words to say ultimately nothing. They have presented the many questions which they themselves had not been able to answer for ten years to a Convention which is only being given a few months to come up with the answers. It also remains to be seen whether the Convention can narrow the gulf between the EU and the people. People are not interested in the redistribution of power between the institutions. What people care about is the content of the decisions, rather than the level at which they are adopted. Europe is not served by a trench war between federalists and intergovernmentalists. More intensive cooperation in gradual steps is what is required. It will then transpire that the Community method is the only viable route to take. The ideological battle about Europe’s future only has losers. As far as I am concerned, Laeken should have stated this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this morning’s preparatory debate gives me the opportunity to make a final contribution on the current and future direction of Europe’s policies. To me, one who has always been a European, it gives the opportunity to bring the point home that Europeans have now had enough of a Europe that is essentially economic and financial, one that all too often, for the sake of the free market and of competitiveness, sacrifices jobs and ignores the day-to-day problems faced by the public; so I join with them, the people, this morning, in recalling the dream of Europe’s founding fathers, the dream of building a Europe of peace, culture, diversity, social security and citizenship in freedom and democracy. Fifty years on, the Europe in which we live is certainly economically strong – for some – but it has neither heart nor breath of life, believes in nothing and is too full of injustice. We are having what we call a spring summit, we are on the threshold of enlargement, a new Intergovernmental Conference is about to be held, and there is very little in the budget, yet I still want to believe that there is still time to set a new course. Having been at first a rather euphoric European, and having now become, after fifteen years in the European Parliament, a more realistic, more critical, not to say more uneasy one, I wanted to use my two minutes to shout, ‘Look out! Danger ahead!’ If it took fifty years to build the European Union that we have now, there is no small risk that we will one day see the structure implode for lack of sufficient popular support or of any ambitious vision of society, through failure to give priority to jobs, to respect for national and regional differences, and in the absence of any real solidarity. It is the richest, rather than the poorest, who must pay for the most disadvantaged. A European constitution is not an objective in itself; it is meaningless unless it meets the public’s expectations, and this morning, I have reminded you of what – in my view – their essential expectations are.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, obviously it would be better if the European Parliament condemned Robert Gueï’s dictatorial manoeuvres, the transformation of the presidential elections into a farce by eliminating most of the candidates, and the ethnic violence triggered by all this. But, as usual, the European countries in general and France in particular are disclaiming all responsibility for what is happening. Why did the French authorities never fail to support Konan Bédié through the years, after he launched his xenophobic campaign against the large minority group of Burkinabe origin that makes up one third of the population of Côte d’Ivoire? Why did the French Government support the election rigging by Gueï, which the European Parliament resolution is set to condemn after the event? Why do the French Government, and the resolution itself, conceal the role of Gbagbo, the current president, in fomenting xenophobia? The non-intervention policy which the French Government put forward to justify its guilty silence is merely a fig leaf to hide its sordid material interests. For decades France supported the dictatorship of Houphouet-Boigny and his one-party regime in order to protect the enormous interests of French capitalist groups that are established in Côte d’Ivoire and dominate its economy. For the same reason, it is tolerating all the villainies of its protégés who run the Ivoirian State, provided they protect French interests in return. From Bédié to Gbagbo, not forgetting Gueï and Ouattara, all those who are vying for power in Côte d’Ivoire bear some responsibility for the rise in xenophobia and the worsening ethnic conflicts there. But the leaders of the French State also share this responsibility. We condemn the ethnic violence and in particular the political leaders who fomented it with their demagogic rhetoric. We condemn the army and the police, many of whose members took part in the assassinations. Conversely, we refuse to associate ourselves with the representatives of political parties who were or are involved in France’s Africa policy. We declare our solidarity with the working people of all origins in Côte d’Ivoire who not only are being kept destitute but whom their leaders are trying to set one against the other. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is abundantly clear that the European Union intends to sacrifice small and medium-sized farmers and support for agriculture at European Union level at the alter of the World Trade Organisation. The inviolable principle behind all European Union decisions is how best to serve the interests of big business and the multinationals. The forthcoming reform of the CAP – which is a catastrophic overhaul, not the mid-term review it claims to be – is being carried out in the run up to and under pressure from WTO negotiations. The proposed WTO agreement speeds up the liberalisation of the international trade in agricultural produce on the pretext that international trade will increase and benefit the developing countries. The same was said of GATT, and look what happened there. GATT was going to increase the international trade in agricultural produce and generate wealth. Not only did the developing countries and their people not benefit; they were worse off than before, with no margin for development even in countries with a high output like Argentina. All that happened was that the multinationals producing and selling agricultural produce sent their profit figures soaring. The same will happen with the WTO agreement, for three basic reasons. The first has to do with the approach, which favours monopolies, as did GATT. The second has to do with the international system of prices and subsidies for agricultural produce and the international system of prices for industrial goods. The rich countries buy cheap agricultural produce and sell expensive industrial goods, including medicines. The third reason has to do with who produces and owns the agricultural produce in numerous developing countries, where farming and agricultural produce are owned by huge multinationals paying starvation wages. That is why the Communist Party of Greece is against the proposed agreement and is doing everything it can to coordinate the grass-roots fight in every country for international trade based on mutual benefit of equal value to all.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, in that case – I understand your position – I should like to move that we postpone the vote until tomorrow or Thursday.

Political group: Verts-ALE