GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I will try not to read any sinister political motivation into that. Commissioner Lamy, you say that plenary debates like this are to fully inform Parliament about the progress of GATS negotiations but, in the absence of the document that would tell us precisely what is being demanded of whom, this exchange is almost entirely academic. If, in order to find that information, the majority of parliamentarians have to resort to leaks on NGO websites, then really we are a very long way from exercising parliamentary scrutiny. So, while I am grateful to you for speaking to us tonight, I would like to make clear that this does not constitute any kind of political scrutiny. You have made it clear that you believe that you have gone as far as you can, as Commissioner, to make GATS texts available to us. You tell us that you are trying to be open but that you have limited room for manoeuvre. Well, as parliamentarians we are doing what we can to increase that room, but can I ask you specifically what you are doing to increase that room for manoeuvre? In your letter last October to the Chair of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, you accused Parliamentarians of making false claims about what you called the alleged intransparency of the EU decision-making process. You went on to say, and I quote, 'the current rules of access allow the European Parliament to fully exercise its task of political control'. Can I ask you whether you still genuinely believe that the current rules are sufficient? Secondly, the mandate. Since the level of public awareness about the implications and complexities of the GATS process has grown enormously over the past few years, can you tell us why you believe it is still appropriate to negotiate within the WTO on the basis of a Council mandate granted back in 1999? Would it not be more appropriate to adopt a new mandate and in it make explicit the rights of public authorities and institutions at all levels to regulate public services in order to maintain social and environmental standards free from challenge under GATS? Finally, development. DG Trade's press release announcing the EU-GATS offers says they are all about helping developing countries. Let us look at the figures. The EU made 109 requests and received just 27 requests back. Only half of those were from developing countries and just one was from a least developed country. Let us not fool ourselves with the rhetoric that this is favouring the poorest. The figures show that it clearly is not.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Today, President Prodi told us that, so as not to sour Turkey’s attitude, its application to join the Union will be legitimised at Helsinki. This is a major step forwards, but it is a shame that Turkey has not taken any such positive steps. We are all indignant at the confirmation of the death sentence on President Öçalan, we are all united in asking for a gesture from the Turkish Government, and then there is the moratorium on capital punishment: it is likely that the sentence will be suspended, despite the government’s grave decision not to respond to the request from the Court in Strasbourg. Of course, this is not without importance, but is it enough to convince us that Turkey has its house in order so it can join the Union? No. Every day in Turkey human rights are violated: there are thousands of political prisoners, and union and religious freedoms, freedom of opinion and minorities’ freedoms are repressed. In the light of the extraordinary event and unilateral actions for peace, whereby the PKK chose to abandon the armed struggle and implement a ceasefire, and in the light of numerous leaders of the PKK choosing to turn themselves in to the Turkish authorities in order to reaffirm their choice of wishing to negotiate for peace, the Turkish Government gave only negative and scornful responses. Some young Kurdish refugees visiting the European Parliament asked us: will you help us return to our villages? They have been destroyed – will you help us rebuild them? As much as I welcome and am grateful for the content of the Morillon report, I think that we must send out a strong signal by postponing this decision until the Turkish Government confirms the stay of execution and begins talks to find a solution to the Kurdish question. There can be no double standards when it comes to the right to live.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to thank Mr Gasòliba i Böhm for an unusually interesting report. In purely practical terms, it is now clear that the introduction of the euro has been extremely successful. The latest Eurobarometer indicates that 75% of citizens in the eurozone countries are satisfied. Mr Gasòliba i Böhm certainly draws attention to a number of unnecessary price rises upon the actual transition to the euro but, overall, we now know that these were fairly modest and that they have since become less pronounced. It is quite obvious that we can anticipate the eurozone in the future creating conditions for lower price rises, which is perhaps what is most important of all. I nonetheless think that the most interesting thing about this report is the observation that the euro is in the process of becoming a world currency, together with the demands for a feasibility study designed further to strengthen that role, for we can see how the dollar even now dominates in the world at large. In particular, international trade, especially in oil and other raw materials, has for a long time taken place in dollars. Use of the euro and its importance as a currency are increasing all the time, however. I believe that, in the future, the euro may very well be able to compete with the dollar as a world currency. If we could achieve this, it would be important from both economic and political points of view. There is a lot to be said, for example, for the possibility of one day fixing oil prices in euros. I know that my colleague, Mr Goebbels, is among those who have addressed that idea in various reports. It would be in the interests of the oil-producing Gulf States because more and more of these countries’ goods are imported from the eurozone. It would also, however, be in the interests of European consumers because the price fluctuations we have for oil and petrol, dependent upon the rate of the dollar, would disappear. In my own country, Sweden, the debate is fully under way prior to the autumn referendum on introducing the euro. I believe that the prospect of the euro, together with an enlarged EU and EMU, possibly offsetting US power and the dollar’s world dominance is one of the most important factors that could make the Swedes vote yes in the referendum.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the President of the Commission on his speech today and on his report on the year 2000. I would also like to highlight the important role which this report attributes to the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which I would like to congratulate Commissioner Vitorino for his great contribution. The Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Mr President – and now we will have to see how we can include this Charter in the Treaty – also have another side. To defend fundamental rights means to attack those who violate them within the European Union. And I therefore believe that all initiatives relating to the third pillar are of paramount importance to this Parliament. This has been said today by Mr Poettering and many other speakers. For us, the communitisation phase of the issues, which, in Maastricht, were in the third pillar, is paramount. And I believe there is an initiative, Mr President, which the Commission has highlighted in its six-monthly scoreboards, to which we attach great importance: I am referring to the European arrest order. I believe that there can be no place in the European Union for terrorists, for those terrorists who yesterday placed another bomb in Madrid and who have tried to end the lives of people, of European citizens. I therefore believe that if we do things for real, if they can be done, if they can be made tangible, if they can be seen, such as that idea of putting the alleged terrorist before that judge who has issued an arrest order in European territory, European citizens will understand that this is what integrating Europe is about and that this is something useful. This is how we will make a real contribution to bringing Europe closer to the citizens. Mr President, I am sure that this initiative, which is one of the Commission's priorities, will soon be a reality. I would therefore like to encourage you to continue along these lines.

Political group: PPE-DE
As the Commissioner stated, the problems surrounding the contamination of turkey meat in Germany are very reminiscent of those surrounding the dioxin contamination of chickens in Belgium in 1999. Then, however, the Commission levelled such heavy criticism at Belgium on account of its provision of information that due to a knee-jerk reaction in many countries inside and outside the EU, the borders closed for practically all Belgian agricultural products, with serious economic consequences. The Commission immediately introduced an export ban on possibly contaminated products, coupled with a very strict monitoring system. Commissioner, when I now gauge the Commission’s reaction to what has happened in Germany, then there is a world of difference. Germany notified too late, far too late, despite the fact that it already knew, which was not the case in Belgium. We were slightly late, but not that much. The Commission has been notified, but, unlike the affair in Belgium, no complaints have been lodged against Germany. No action has been taken, etc. Do not be surprised therefore that there is a feeling in Belgium that once again, the Commission’s reaction is completely different because a large Member State is involved. I would therefore like to know why that is, Commissioner, and I would appreciate your thoughts on how you handled this situation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is quite opportune that I am the last speaker, as I want to add a note of optimism to the debate, which until now has been rather gloomy. I appreciate that these are challenging times for the textile industry. I appreciate too that we are running into a new era where import controls will be different and a new sector will be joining our textile industry. But, to inject a note of optimism, just as I said in the debate in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, one has only to look at the jackets and suits we are all wearing and ask where they were made. I will tell you where they were made: in Europe. This jacket that I am wearing was made by Crombie, a local textile firm in my town in England; it is a good, English suit. I do not know where the cloth came from, but it was the skills of British workers and those of the textile industry in Europe that took a low-quality commodity product and transformed it into a high-quality, high-value product – that is the future for the textile industry. Different parts of the textile industry will find different routes, some more technical than others, some craft-related; some will go in other directions. That is the future for our industry. This should be the message going out to the industry from the Commission White Paper. We must be sure that when the Commission acts, our textile and clothing sector – much of it being made up of small companies – is able to invest in new technology and production techniques. It must be able to find ways to add value to the basic products that we may be importing from elsewhere. We must also – and this is a point which has not been previously mentioned – protect our industry from counterfeiting. This has become increasingly vital. Counterfeiting is a very serious issue for high-value, quality products, and is an issue we must address. I see no reference to this at all in the White Paper. Finally, if we get it right for the textile industry, we can learn some very important lessons for other industrial sectors. We should also be looking at leather goods and footwear, and using textiles as an industrial sector flagship that can lead the way in this new century, with European workers able to earn a living from producing high-value, quality products.

Political group: PSE
I want to put this follow-up question to Commissioner Bosquin: how does the Commissioner believe that people’s confidence in the European Union and the EU’s common research programme will be affected in the various Member States, especially in the four countries which have legislated to ban the use of embryo stem cells? Is it not an important issue concerning confidence in the EU and the common research policy if the European Union itself carries out research programmes in areas in which these countries have taken political steps to ban research? Should EU research not be concerned with areas about which there is consensus instead of areas that are controversial?

Political group: PPE-DE
Kyrgyzstan is not yet a democracy. There is no division of powers, and no independent judiciary power. Human rights, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, etc. are continuously violated. There is an enormous abuse of power by the government, and people are thrown into prison at random under false accusations to eliminate political opponents. There is repression against independent journalists, and the press is the government’s monopoly. What can we then expect as democrats? Despite this, there are people who, with great courage, try to uphold democracy in their country, despite major personal risks, as Mr Beknazarov found out. Democratically elected people, journalists and citizens who uphold the rule of law are oppressed and even subjected to torture. But they should know that the European Union is on their side on this. We must apply pressure on the government. We have, in the framework of the partnership and the cooperation agreement, the chance to pressurise the government into engaging in dialogue with the opposition, ending the torture and ensuring that the country is on track to becoming one in which the rule of law applies.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The phenomenon of mass redundancies from large multinationals which seems to be having an ‘avalanche’ effect is a sharp slap in the face for the high-sounding proclamations on tackling unemployment and job creation in the EU. Goodyear, Renault and now Michelin, having adapted themselves to the growth models created by the single market and integrated into the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties and EMU, have turned the climate of unaccountability to their advantage by gradually annihilating every form of social responsibility and protection of workers. This has created more unemployment and increased levels of social exclusion. Extensive restructuring and company mergers have favoured increased profit-yielding activities at the cost of productive investments which, in turn, has led to mass redundancies. Pretexts are hardly even needed now in the climate of rampant competition and unaccountability of big business, as is apparent from the announcements by the Michelin management of a 17% increase in profits and 7,500 redundancies, adding to the 15,000 redundancies in recent years. This callousness and cynicism are not only endorsed by the EU and its various bodies; they are also being funded in the context of direct or indirect financial aid intended to safeguard competitiveness on a global scale. The human factor has been largely overridden by the most barbaric form of capitalism. Employees are expected, with a gun threatening unemployment held to their heads, to underwrite increased profits and to accept humiliating agreements on terms, conditions and salaries, as in the Michelin case, only to find that their jobs are eventually axed anyway. EMU is a one-way street for monopolies whose only aim is to increase profits and consolidate their power. Employees have nothing to gain by following this route which only leads to unemployment, a lower quality of life, marginalisation and eventual destitution. Since employee protection is being violated and disregarded altogether and since employees’ rights are being flagrantly trampled underfoot, the only way open to employees is to protest, fight, challenge the choices made by the monopolies and EMU and fight for full employment, improved living conditions, real social development and prosperity. Today’s resolution, in effect, renders the European Parliament jointly responsible for implementing more unpopular policies to the detriment of workers. It is an unacceptable resolution and, on behalf of all working people, we shall be voting against it. – Nuclear tests

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I want to keep my speech on the Convergence Report 2002 – Sweden fairly short and, first of all, thank the rapporteur, Mr Olle Schmidt, on a sterling piece of work. On 1 January 2002, the euro was introduced as the currency, in notes and coinage, of 12 European Union countries. The transition was very successful, and people accepted the new currency in a positive way. Worries about price increases proved to be more or less unjustified. As everyone knows, Sweden is not among those countries that went over to using the euro as a currency. The reason for this was, of course, mainly political. If Sweden is to be able to introduce the euro as a currency, we must however formally meet five convergence criteria. The Commission and the ECB consider that Sweden fulfils the three criteria relating to price stability, public sector finances and long-term interest rates. That is all well and good, but Sweden does not fulfil the remaining two criteria, that is to say those relating to the rate of exchange and legal convergence. With regard to the rate of exchange criterion, the Swedish krona has obviously fluctuated in value in recent years. It should however be borne in mind that, when Sweden formally requests a reappraisal, this will be carried out in the course of a second reference period and against a background of expectations that may tend to increase exchange rate stability. When it comes to legal convergence, it is essential for Sweden as soon as possible to introduce the change in Swedish legislation that is required if the euro is to be introduced. The outcome of the forthcoming referendum must of course be respected but, in my opinion, Sweden should, in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, already be prepared to prevent a delay in the introduction of the euro due to the absence of legal convergence. With all due respect for the convergence criteria, the decision concerning Swedish participation in the third phase of EMU is political. It is a decision that will be made by the Swedish people. In the referendum of 14 September 2003, the Swedish people will decide for a long time to come which currency is to be used in Sweden. On the other hand, Sweden is obliged, under the Treaty of Maastricht, to become fully involved in EMU cooperation once the convergence criteria have been fulfilled. Unlike Denmark and Great Britain, Sweden has no special exemption clause, but we shall hopefully obtain a ‘yes’ vote from the Swedish people on 14 September. As a result, the Swedish Government need no longer, either intentionally or unintentionally, delay or avoid taking the measures whereby Sweden will fulfil the remaining convergence criteria. I noted with satisfaction that Mr Olle Schmidt accepted Amendments Nos 3 and 4 by the Group of the . This will make it possible to obtain that broad support for the report desired by both the rapporteur and myself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree with the idea that legislation in this sort of area needs to be all-embracing and comprehensive, but, as a farmer, I do not agree with everything in the report, for example, that farm-produced animal feed should also be covered by the measures. I think it is something that cannot be practically applied or monitored. For that reason, we should look into legislation which is reasonable in the sense that it could be monitored and implemented in practice. The sort of legislation that cannot be monitored or implemented in practice will naturally erode Parliament’s credibility, as will the fact too that we should draft such legislation. I will cite Amendment No 18 as an example. How can we monitor what a domestic animal roaming freely drinks or where it drinks? The basic idea is right. Legislation must be all-embracing and comprehensive, but it must also be such as can be put into effect and monitored in practice. The application of legislation to feed produced on a farm is something that cannot be practically implemented or monitored. Otherwise I do agree very much with this overall policy and the basic idea behind it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, drugs are, of course, a big problem in Thailand, and it is entirely understandable that the Thai Government, being also under pressure from the international community and from the United States, should wage war on drug smuggling. This war on drugs, however, also has a flip side. During my visit to Dutch prisoners there last week, including Machiel Kuyt, I saw the abject conditions under which she, along with other Europeans, is being held, and how, consequently, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand has been party since 1997, is being violated. Extremely long detentions due to a shortage of judges and overfull prisons illustrate this point. Two things need to happen in order for this situation to change. First of all, in the framework of the country strategy paper on Thailand dating back to May 2002, the European Union should turn its attention to legal aid, so that the seriously overtaxed legal system is relieved and the rights of the suspects are better respected. Secondly, the Union should urge its Member States to conclude bilateral agreements with Thailand, which enables the transfer of prisoners. These agreements already exist with a number of countries, such as Great Britain, Sweden and Denmark, and certainly also with my own country, the Netherlands; other countries should also conclude them, and Thailand is very much in favour of them doing so.

Political group: ELDR