GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President. I wish to speak on the same point. I do not take the view that the debate here and hence the vote tomorrow are irrelevant. Quite the contrary. What I would like clarified for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and because the Council is not here I would be happy to hear it from Commissioner Byrne before the debate, is this: how are we to interpret these announcements and the Council conclusions before us. Obviously the Council has decided that, if we react to the regulation presented by the Commission with proposed amendments, it may not agree to the simplified procedure, i.e. to accept this postponement under the codecision procedure. It would then approve another proposal from the Commission, drafted in accordance with the old Regulation 820, article 19 of which establishes implementing provisions which allow a postponement of one year. The Council has apparently decided, should the Commission make this formal proposal, to agree to it. So, obviously what we have here is a twin-track approach by the Commission and we are naturally curious to know, Commissioner Byrne, now that we are in the middle of a codecision procedure, if the Commission is using a twin-track approach to circumvent this codecision by announcing a different approach to the Council. I would be most obliged if you could tell me if you condone this approach by the Council, whereby a simplified codecision procedure can only be approved if Parliament does not exercise its right to amend the text presented by the Commission to the Council, in which case we must conclude that, if we exercise that right we are, to all intents and purposes, out of the codecision procedure! We would like this point cleared up by the Commissioner before the debate. I am sorry, Commissioner, but I must put this question to you; the Council is not here and we would like this cleared up before the debate and before tomorrow’s vote. I repeat that I consider that this debate and tomorrow’s vote, i.e. the postponement, are urgently needed. I disagree in this respect with the previous speaker, but I share his view that this needs to be clarified.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, let me make an alternative suggestion. I propose that my colleague Mr Wuori’s human rights report remain on the agenda and in addition the Council and the Commission be asked for a statement on the Irish referendum in conjunction with the Gothenburg discussion. This is completely possible. We have the whole morning for these two discussions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is fortunate that the report, which most of the members of the temporary committee voted in favour of, acknowledges the existence of the Echelon network, despite American authorities maintaining a guilty silence. I myself did not vote in favour due to the poor quality of the report’s conclusions. Echelon is, in fact, one of the essential parts of the NSA, a sprawling global espionage network which employs approximately 90 000 people and which has the technical capacity to carry out hundreds of millions of interceptions each day. This system is a real instrument of war against individual freedoms, and is controlled by only eight people, one of whom is the President of the United States, cynically called the ‘gang of eight’ by the chairman of the Congress monitoring committee. The industrial and political espionage system was set up during the Cold War and its role is to defend what some dare to call the free world. The people who hold these views met us in Washington, in this state of mind and not without a degree of annoyance. They asked us why we had come to try to cause trouble for them, when the money, armies and secret services of both the United States and Europe are defending the same values. These are values that mean, for example, that on entry visas to the United States, the question ‘Are you involved in Communist activities?’ has been replaced by ‘Are you involved in terrorist activities?’ It is now clear why no state or company has ever complained about the workings of Echelon – it is obviously to acknowledge the debt for services rendered. It is now known that the United Kingdom and Germany act as intermediaries in this system, despite being members of the European Union and signatories of all the conventions on human rights. Other countries, however, such as France, have similar practices. Our response to Echelon will not be fine sounding speeches or technical measures such as encryption. We will respond by providing accurate information to the public about the choices it has in terms of society and by strictly applying the basic rights enshrined in the conventions on human rights. Industrial espionage is the lot of a society motivated by profit and competition; political espionage is the by-product of an undemocratic society and this is the basic problem posed by the Echelon system. We must respond to the global policing of interceptions with vigilance and popular intervention on a global scale and I maintain that European laws of today are better equipped to protect people against industrial espionage than against individual espionage. This is one perception of Europe, but it is one that I do not support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, if we were to do that here, we would not need to present the oral amendment on Paragraph 29. So it would be easier to do that here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the idea that the Union’s competences should be fewer, much fewer in number than they are today but greater, much greater than they are today is one I support. This is a basic premise of the Lamassoure report which I endorse. It is certainly a mature decision to extend the Union’s competences to the common foreign and defence policy – only thus will Europe be able to make its voice heard in matters of preserving order, peace, stability and world development – and to the management of the common area of freedom and security, because only thus will we be able to combat organised crime and drugs effectively and address the issue of extra-Community immigration in a civilised manner. The Eurobarometer readings would indicate that combating poverty and exclusion should also have a place among the Union’s core competences. That said, in accepting and underlining the importance of the principle of subsidiarity and transferring all the other competences to federal sovereign bodies in accordance with this principle, it is true that, realistically, we need to acknowledge that, in the present phase of European history which is undeniably distinguished by the enlargement procedure, the Union we are building is a Union of States. That does not change the fact that the Member States themselves grew up and were defined merely in response to a need for integration in times past. They are structures dating from before the present age of globalisation. It is a fact that, in recent decades, the States have had to relinquish sovereignty upwards – as is the case with the Union itself – and, especially, downwards, towards the territorial, regional and local bodies which now represent the real identity and seat of democratic control in many parts of Europe. From this point of view, like many of the previous speakers, I believe that we need to acknowledge that we cannot just define the principle of subsidiarity in terms of its application to the Union/Member States relationship but that we need to go further and apply it to that relationship which we have undertaken to create as a further contribution to the Convention’s work.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the American trade representative Bob Zoelleck made this House an unequivocal but positive offer in the competent committees via the Kangaroo Group, namely that we jointly devise an open trade policy for increasing prosperity throughout the world, including in developing countries. I think that we should take up this offer and start looking at trade policy as a way of broadening transatlantic relations as a whole. We all know that NATO will still need to play a major role in the collective defence of Europe for a long time to come. We seem, understandably, to have lost all awareness of common security since 1990, which is why we need to ensure that relations between the United States of America and Europe are strengthened in every other political field. We should take up this offer by the US Administration. In doing so, we should also further the opportunity for relations between our House and the American Congress, provided that we can make our contribution here. You only need look at the difficulties we have experienced with data protection over recent years, because we have no jointly agreed legislation for global economic areas, to see just how far the transatlantic legislators' dialogue needs to go. I should like, if I may, to address one last point: the United States are now the only superpower in the world and they approach foreign policy problems as such. Their relations with Russia are predicated on this global position, while Europe defines its position from a regional standpoint and sees it in the context of the enlargement process. But that should not mean that we pass up the opportunity to pursue a joint strategic approach in this region. I have a feeling that we have not pursued a joint policy in connection with Ukraine over recent weeks. Now that the westward looking government has been ousted and Chernomyrdin has taken over as governor with the title ambassador to Kiev, it is obvious that we have made strategic blunders which we must not underestimate and which – to my chagrin – we have not discussed even once in the General Council this week. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am wondering whether you have just held a vote by roll call. My voting card was somewhere else, so I voted too late. Please will you note that I voted in favour?

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Khanbhai report makes an extraordinary analysis of one of the most serious challenges facing the world today; the fight against the main communicable diseases in the context of poverty reduction. Communicable diseases kill around 10 000 people every day in Africa, with 35 million people throughout the world contaminated with Aids. HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis are, therefore, a terrible threat to the social and economic development of the poorest communities, and as Mr Khanbhai argues, require a rapid, effective and wide-ranging response, in which the EU must take the lead. These diseases cause not only human suffering and an extremely high number of deaths, which are in themselves justification enough for such a response, but also cause a drastic reduction in life expectancy and in the labour force, with all the social and economic consequences that this entails They seriously disable large working populations, retard social and economic development and destabilise communities that are already weakened. I therefore agree with the rapporteur when he states the urgent need to create an Infectious Disease Fund, which is crucial to providing medical treatment for those affected, to identifying carriers, to prevention and research and to the development of new medicines and vaccines.

Political group: PPE-DE
The draft resolution is right to condemn the destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure, to call for an arms boycott and to keep the option to suspend the Association Agreement between Israel and the EU open. For these reasons, and because a proportion of the Right who still do not grasp the full extent of the problem are voting against, I will be voting in favour. The Right still sees Israel as an outpost of Europe and America in the heart of the Arab region and as a military base near the major oil wells and the strategically important Suez Canal. This is precisely what inflames the surrounding Arab peoples. Israel’s best chance of survival is to have open traffic connections with the surrounding area, to utilise Israeli expertise in the neighbouring countries and even to apply for membership of the Arab League. The current Israeli Government is employing the fear of attacks as a means of pressing home its minority view. It does not want to protect the safety of Israeli citizens as a priority. Above all, it wants to thwart the Palestinian regions in their economic development by destroying buildings, roads, the port and the airport. The objective of such a policy, defended by an aggressive Right since time immemorial, can be nothing but a permanent colonisation of Gaza and the West Bank, with hardliners flown in straight from the US involved in Jewish settlements. In this way, the Israeli Government puts the future of its own state at risk.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Secretary-General, Commissioner, there are gestures which deserve our applause in their own right. That applies to the plans for reform of the Council. Some of the subjects that the Secretary-General referred to, which are highly complex politically speaking, need a revision of the Treaties. For this reason it would be very helpful if the Council could present these proposals to the Convention on the future of Europe in time for them to be discussed and incorporated, if that is agreed, into the outcome its work, which is to be presented to the Intergovernmental Conference next year. However, I think we all agree that many, indeed the majority perhaps, of the reforms needed for the Council to function well do not fall into this category. There is essentially a consensus that the day-to-day working of one of the most important institutions of the European Union has drifted away from the model set out in the Treaties. In practice, this 'intergovernmental drift' has not only deprived the Commission and the European Parliament of some of their powers under the Treaties, but has also deprived our national parliaments of means of effectively scrutinising their own governments. For this reason, I agree with Mr Poos, the co-rapporteur of the report presented to Parliament on the reform of the Council, when he says that people expect the European Council to have an open and forward-looking political vision, and strategic options and guidelines, rather than responsibility for coordination or taking decisions which should be made by the General Affairs Council. It is also crucial to recognise that as a co-legislator the Council should not hold its discussions behind closed doors and that it should be open in exercising its political responsibilities. It is important that it should be possible to identify who does or does not make decisions at European level. For many of our citizens, Brussels is distant and needs to be given a human face. The Council bears a great responsibility for this failure to bring the Community institutions closer to the public, making its mission very important. I wish them good luck!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I like to think and act to promote mediation and combating poverty and injustice as the means of resolving conflicts, not war and bombing, but I am not a saint: I am completely immersed in the complexity and contradiction of conflicts. I agree with Commissioner Patten: it is not enthusiasm that is needed – although a little would not go amiss – but solutions, and these solutions must not be the Danse macabre being performed by Mr Bush and Mr Sharon or Osama Bin Laden and Hamas, who are destroying people, nature and human and social rights. The conflict between forces of good and evil is reminiscent of the Middle Ages, and it undermines the rule of law. The Taliban have been defeated but their ideology lives on: many of their practices, with which those in power today are not unfamiliar, remain. The refugees are returning home but they are given no support, schools are reopening but schoolgirls have been the victims of a bomb attack, cinemas are reopening but they are banned from showing Indian films because they contain women without veils, women are banned from singing on the radio or television, rape and violence are common occurrences, the lethal, lucrative opium trade continues, and, although reconstruction is taking place – and it is a slow process – Afghanistan is in danger of forfeiting its sovereignty to money and corruption. For this and many other reasons, our economic and social aid must be provided swiftly and effectively to allow the establishment of the structures and infrastructure of a rule of law and to empower that part of civil society – particularly women – which is completely devoted to securing freedom, justice, development and peace for all men and women. The situation in Afghanistan is tragic and we must continue to help the country in the knowledge that there is a universal need for sovereignty and that there must be an end to war in the region.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I am about to leave for one of these regional fisheries organisations in Marrakech, where I am due to arrive the day after tomorrow to take part as an observer for this Parliament, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, I should like to take part in this debate on our colleague Salvador Jové’s magnificent report, in which the position of our committee is made quite clear. We are backing the regional fisheries organisations; we are asking for more regional fisheries organisations and for the Commission to have more weight in them. When we say more organisations, we mean those that can and should be set up in the South Atlantic or South Pacific – as has already been said here – and for the Commission to take a leading role in them. I believe the future of fishing in international waters depends on these organisations, and the Commission must make every possible effort, Commissioner, to this end. To support the United Nations position in both the 1982 Convention and the New York one, which has been mentioned here, we must maintain a very active presence in these organisations in favour of responsible fishing. You can count on the support of this Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries, including our support for acquiring more material and human resources, which, as has been shown, are much needed. We are a budgetary authority and I believe we should fund this line, because in these organisations and in these waters we are staking a lot on the future of fisheries in the coming years. I want, therefore, to stress that the opinion of Parliament is practically unanimous, and so the Commission should realise that we are allies in this constructive endeavour to give the Commission greater weight – more staff, as we have said. In comparison with other nations the European Union representation is clearly small, so we have to have more and better representation, Mr Fischler. Let me say that we are going to continue this strategy of calling you before our committee in advance to inform us of the positions that you intend to advocate. We shall do so together with the fishing sector so that we can form a common, joint opinion Then you will have to return to the parliamentary committee for the Commission to report back to us. I should like to close, Mr President, by once again congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Jové, for the magnificent report he has drawn up.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will make two remarks on the report by Mr Gil-Robles Gil Delgado and Mr Tsatsos, which reflects the hopes but also the fears of this House. The first remark relates to the identity of Europe. I would mention the words of a great historical liberal: ‘Why we cannot help calling ourselves Christians’. The reference to Christian roots could help to strengthen the secular nature of a policy which continues to be undermined by indifference and love of power. Nevertheless, what we are calling on to unite Europe must not divide it. I am, in fact, convinced that the references to the human person and to peace, freedom and democracy, to human rights and to pluralism represent the synthesis in constitutional form of Christian and democratic values that inspired the actions of the founders of the European Community. The second remark concerns future revision of a compromise that the Intergovernmental Conference may be able to improve on, without reopening the debate on the institutional balance proposed by the Convention. The report condemns the fact that the unanimity of the States continues to apply to the Constitutions’ revision procedure, and continues to do so even in the future. I believe that the Commission’s opinion – mentioned here by Mr Barnier – must be supported, in other words that the IGC should pave the way for more flexible revision procedures that do not allow the right to veto, at least where the non-essential provisions of the Treaty are concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr Ribeiro e Castro has been accused of involvement in a crime of slander, a crime punishable under the Portuguese Penal Code of 1982 and under Law No 58 of 1990. The origin of this case is a report on the commercial practices of a private employment agency, broadcast on 16 February 1995 by TVI, Televisão Independente S.A., of which Mr Ribeiro e Castro is director of programmes. During the programme it was stated that the employment agency did not offer serious jobs and charged excessive commissions for searching for jobs, which, furthermore, were very unpromising. The agency brought proceedings against Mr Ribeiro e Castro, and against other employees of TVI, seeking compensation for the damage done to its reputation. Parliamentary immunity is not a privilege designed to benefit individual Members of the European Parliament, but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members with regard to other powers. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market considers that the waiver of parliamentary immunity by the Member does not have legal effects. The alleged offence took place in February 1995, the request was made in May 2000 and the mandate of Mr Ribeiro e Castro did not begin until 17 November 1999, when he succeeded Mr Paolo Portas. Much time has elapsed between the alleged offence and the request being presented; this is an offence which affects freedom of expression, in relation to which this Parliament has always recognised immunity, and the fact that Mr Ribeiro e Castro has asked for a waiver of his immunity does not affect this decision. Consequently, the Committee on Legal Affairs, in accordance with Rules 6(4) and 6(6) of the Rules of Procedure, having examined the reasons for and against the waiver of immunity, recommends that the European Parliament does not waive the immunity of Mr Ribeiro e Castro. IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice­President

Political group: PSE