GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Secretary-General Solana, the Palestinian Prime Minister, Ahmad Quray categorically excludes Palestinian moves and efforts to combat the terrorist groups that systematically sabotage the fragile and extremely relative peace in the Middle East. In this way, the Palestinian Prime Minister has provided absolutely the best grounds for pessimism to all those who do not think there is a future for the Middle East and all those who do not believe there can be peace there. Mr Solana, I want you to broach this subject with the Palestinian Prime Minister. Among the necessary preconditions for peace in the Middle East are that the Palestinian terrorist groups should be disarmed and that their terrorist activities should not continue. If the Palestinian Government neither wishes, nor is effectively able, to do anything about terrorist groups in the Middle East, Israel will do something about them. Approximately a week ago, 19 people died in a suicide attack in Haifa. In a democratic country such as Israel, which is a sign to the rest of the world that democracy exists in the Middle East, every such suicide attack carried out by a terrorist group will make Israeli opinion less willing to compromise with the Palestinian Authority and less well disposed towards handing land over to the Palestinians. No country, including Israel, is obliged in the long term to accept as neighbours either countries that make land available to terrorists who carry out attacks or countries that fail to intervene against such movements in their territories. The Palestinian Prime Minister’s, Ahmad Quray’s, impotence in the face of terrorism is perhaps in itself entirely understandable. It is difficult to get at armed groups of that size. He must nonetheless indicate, politically and in terms of the action he takes, that that is his ambition. Nor has the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, dared to intervene vigorously against the terrorist groups, in spite of the fact that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups are indirectly and deliberately sabotaging the peace process with its associated two-state solution, of which the Palestinian Government officially professes itself an adherent. Allow me to sum up before I move on to another area. The Palestinian Prime Minister must clearly let it be known, in words and action, that there can be no room for terrorist activity in a future two-state solution, least of all in the territory of the Palestinian Authority. The second matter I intended to address concerns the way in which religion is misused. This has to do with relations between the West and the Islam-dominated world. I find it depressing that Muslim religious leaders do not explain much more clearly that suicide attacks cannot be compatible with a religion of love, reconciliation and goodness. Religion must stand for love and shared humanity. It must stand for reconciliation and for the good, and not for the deaths of innocent people, as in the case of the suicide bombing in Haifa.

Political group: PPE-DE
The agreements between the United States and the EU are, of course, really about integrating the EU countries’ and the United States’s criminal law and rules of criminal procedure or, at any rate, essential aspects of these. The agreements should provoke protests from any serious politician specialising in the law. These agreements represent the current low point in the development of the EU’s legal policy. In the Nordic countries, specialists in the field thought that the low point had been reached with the two framework decisions concerning the European arrest warrant and measures for combating terrorism, but matters are now still worse. Note that the only professional investigation implemented by the institutions of the EU concerning these crucial issues of legal policy are open to serious criticism on the grounds of principle due to the fact that, in the context of the rights that are a crucial part of our democratic basis of values, the EU’s acts violate a range of basic principles in the fields of criminal law and procedure. We are concerned here with what is termed the EU network of independent experts in basic rights which, on 31 March of this year, issued a comprehensive report on, as they put it, the balance between freedom and security. Has anyone within the EU system attended to the criticism by the group of experts that the acts compromise legal certainty? Definitely not. As I say, these agreements make matters still worse. The EU system and the Member States will now, in the first place, accept the extradition of citizens of the Member States for criminal prosecution and imprisonment in the United States, which is a banana republic in terms of legal policy. Quite a few speakers have referred to the scandal in Guantánamo Bay, where EU citizens are being detained and mistreated under circumstances that decisively violate international law and basic legal principles. It is incomprehensible that an agreement can be entered into with a juridico-political banana republic. The American investigation services will, moreover, subsequently be permitted to operate within the Member States. A year’s secret negotiations were conducted in advance and, as the Council put it, protecting the Council’s negotiations was a more important interest than democratic scrutiny. Can we sink any deeper? I also refer to the minority opinion on the report, which I have been a party to issuing on behalf of the Confederal Group of the .

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my career as a Member of the European Parliament, I am happy in the certain knowledge that the Council will give Parliament‘s misguided and dangerous opinion the consideration it deserves, i.e. none at all! Commissioner Vitorino, although I hold you in high regard – and have said as much on many occasions in this House – the Commission document itself is shot through with negligent ignorance as to the situation in the very Member States that have been generous enough to accord large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers the right to protection and hospitality over the past few years. You ask too much of our society, and in so doing, run the risk of creating a breeding ground for something that we have always fought against in this House. The liberal and social democrat delegates from the large Member States – because so far today, I have only heard speakers of this political persuasion from the small Member States – must ask themselves whether they are remotely in touch with the electorate, whether they are aware of the consequences, and whether they have grasped that more authority for Parliament in these matters would also bring increased responsibility. The age is past when we could hold forth here on our dreams for making the world a better place, without repercussions. I would be very interested to see how you intend to justify today’s decision to your electorate. Many of you will only vote in favour of this proposal today because you know full well that the Council will never endorse it as it stands. I feel this is unworthy of you. It is contrary to our task and to the mandate we have been given by the electorate. I would just like to briefly pick up on the comments you made about polygamous marriages, which caused you to shake your head. For goodness sake, go and read Article 3, paragraph 2, which says: therefore, whilst it is not permissible to bring in several wives and their children, it is, on the other hand, permissible to bring in one wife and her children. This means I could have married someone here in the Member States, and would be at liberty, under certain circumstances, to have at least one more wife join me. In other words, there is admissibility. That is the fact of the matter. In this way, it would be possible.... (Heckling) ... no, that is precisely how it can be interpreted in legal terms! It gives free rein to all kinds of interpretations. There is only one thing we can do here, and that is reject this proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am running short of inspiration about what to say on the subject of the Members' Statute. We have said it all before. We say every time 'this is the last chance' and surely this must be it. Perhaps I should begin where I left off in this Chamber in June when I offered an explanation of vote on behalf of the Group's abstention and my own national delegation's vote against the then resolution. We said we could not give our support then, due to the inclusion of primary law and the lack of the possibility of national tax. I could say on behalf of my Group that 'we told you so' as now, by and large, the majority of this House seems to have arrived at the same position – so we make progress. But before I sat down last time I also said I hoped that the Council would make a better job of this than we did. Well now we are back, offering the Council a clear and acceptable package. Sadly, we all know that the Council did not have a very good weekend. But here is a chance for it to deliver a success story for Europe before the end of this mandate. It may seem a very small success, but its implications for the good name of European democracy are huge. Next summer when we face Europe's citizens in elections we could have a Parliament with its own House in order, its Members across Europe treated and respected equally and on a transparent basis, or we could continue with the current disgraceful mix and muddle which leaves us all open to ridicule. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I believe we all come here to work on behalf of Europe's people, not to spend our time in debates about our own pay and status. Council, you have the chance to get us out of this ridiculous situation and thereby enhance the Union in the eyes of its citizens. Please, please do not mess up this time. (Applause from the centre)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the advantage of speaking at the end of such a debate is that you can react to what has been said before. I would like to say that I strongly disagree with Mrs Villiers’ view that this is such an interesting debate. I think that the European Parliament is doing itself absolutely no favours by thinking only in terms of old categories and churning out old political concepts and visions. It would have been much better if we had actually made the effort to reach compromises and to develop a common vision. I think that, in this way, the European Parliament is excluding itself from the discussion at the very moment that an extremely interesting development is taking place in the European Union where a very wide, socio-economic agenda is being drawn up much more clearly. The Portuguese presidency has submitted a wide agenda of this kind for the extra summit in Lisbon. The Commission has done this in its five-year plan by listing one of the four priorities. The Commission document too, which is being drafted for the summit in Lisbon, takes precisely such a wide approach which covers different areas. I think that in adopting this wide socio-economic approach, the European Union is taking exactly the right line, not least because that is the economic entity on the basis of which policy is drafted. In this light, I think that the European Parliament’s role will be limited in Lisbon, but also in the forum in June for which we might have an invitation, but are unsure as to the input we can have. Are we going to have nothing more to report than the fact that we are still stuck in a mould of old political contradictions?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, with your permission I should like to draw the House's attention to the fact that we have in the official gallery the President of the Chilean Christian Democratic Party, Senator Adolfo Zaldívar. Chile is, as you know, a country with which we have one of the most far-reaching association agreements for trade and we in the House should extend our normal welcome to Senator Zaldívar. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first and foremost I would like to thank Mrs Schierhuber for the work she has done, the main merit of which is the fact that it introduces some sensible elements into a proposal which makes no sense whatsoever. It is true that the regulation in force is deficient in terms of control, and some people have taken advantage of these deficiencies in order to obtain aid which stretches the bounds of legality. These situations obviously required modifications which logically should have concentrated on strengthening controls. Nevertheless, we have seen another example of the unique way in which the Commission fulfils its function of producing legislative proposals. The Commission’s proposal takes an extraordinary approach: instead of strengthening the control mechanisms, it abolishes aid for short-fibre flax. To be honest, the Commission is behaving here like the doctor who proposes decapitation as a cure for a headache. Furthermore, the Commission’s proposal, if put into practice, would lead to the disappearance of the crop in some Member States, which would have a negative affect on many farmers who had found an alternative crop which did not produce surpluses and which was destined for non-food use. In Spain, for example, practically all flax grown is short-fibre flax, since the heat and the lack of rainfall restrict the growth of the plant. Furthermore, the dryness of the ground in summer makes it practically impossible to pull up the plant together with its roots in order to obtain long fibre. Furthermore, short-fibre flax is perfectly suited to dry conditions, there is a certain market for it and, at least in theory, it is the type of production which we are intending to promote. The elimination of aid for short-fibre flax would hinder the innovative non-food use of agricultural products, fundamentally affecting regions with low rainfall and more difficult conditions. The Commission is therefore proposing to concentrate aid in the areas with the best conditions and deny it to the least-favoured ones. I would like to remind the Commission of Article 158 (ex Article 130A) of the Treaty, which lays down that social and economic cohesion must be strengthened, and the differences in levels of development between the different regions and the underdevelopment of the least-favoured regions, including the rural areas, should be reduced. Lastly, I think it is essential that the Commission’s proposals are not accepted; however, in any event, the inclusion in the regulations on herbaceous crops would lead to unfair situations as a result of the use of yields conditioned by drought. Mrs Rodríguez Ramos’ amendments therefore seem to me to be a good solution to the problem.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We regret that the Council has still not pronounced on how it is going to finance the reform of the common fisheries policy and has not reached an agreement on the provision of additional appropriations for the supplementary measure on scrapping fishing vessels, when the Commission proposed an extra EUR 32 million in 2003, financed through the flexibility instrument. Although we reject the scrapping incentive measures (not least because the criteria are unfair), we also reject the idea already aired by the Commission that the reform should be financed through reprogramming of the FIFG or even of the other Structural Funds. We regret that the report does not give the Council a lead in this matter, especially in view of the opinions of the European Parliament and the Committee on Fisheries during the 2003 budget procedure debate. We also regret that our proposed Amendment No 5 was not approved, since ‘new priorities require new financial means’. It is unacceptable that the fisheries sector should continue to be sacrificed, even in the preliminary draft budget for 2004, given the crisis it is undergoing and the need to support fishermen and regions dependent on the sector. We therefore voted against the motion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would firstly like to thank Mr Lagendijk for this report and his spirit of cooperation and receptiveness to a series of suggestions made in committee. We agree with the ultimate objective of the report, which is to aid the democratic and economic recovery of this region and its possible integration into Europe. However, we believe that some of the problems have been due to the development of Europe’s own dynamic and also to the fact that at that time we lacked a coherent, constructive and democratic foreign policy and, with our support for ethnic or religious identities, we have created a problem whose consequences we are now paying for. All the aspects pointed out in the report are positive. I would like to stress the need to support cooperation with the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, the criticism of the possibility of signing agreements with the United States, outside of the International Criminal Court, the support for the return of the refugees and displaced persons and, above all - perhaps the most important aspect – the fight against corruption, the fight against organised crime, against the trafficking in women and children, the fight against all trafficking – of drugs, of arms etc. – which is a cancer which is eating away at this region. We believe that we must offer effective help, that the current financial support is insufficient and that therefore we should review the financial perspectives, in order to provide more resources to assist the region in the necessary manner. We believe that the points made on the different countries are absolutely correct – as Mr Vallvé has said – and the European Union must therefore consider them. I am referring to respect for national minorities and the management of borders in Albania. In the case of Bosnia, it is important to build state structures and promote cooperation with the war crimes tribunals. In relation to Croatia, the importance of national minorities and cooperation with them should be stressed. In Macedonia, the Albanian National Liberation Army must be dismantled and corruption combated. In the case of Serbia, there must be cooperation with the international court in The Hague. We do not agree with the insinuation in the report of possible independence for Kosovo, because we believe that what was agreed in the United Nations resolution should be respected, making Kosovo a province of the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, and we see the UN as an international reference body.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the tone of the debate in this House is clear: most of us want to assist the Irish presidency to reach a quick settlement on the Constitution through our political contacts, and with our experience of these questions we can provide both practical and moral support. The scheduling of the work of the IGC is extremely important because, if it is scheduled and programmed properly, pressure will grow on the Member States to take more seriously their collective duty to provide leadership for the European Union. Why not pencil into the calendar an IGC summit meeting before 1 May? The manner in which the new Commission President is chosen will serve as a further way of restoring political faith in Europe. This is a function of the presidency on which the Taoiseach was curiously discreet. How that person is chosen will be a factor in the fight to restore and strengthen the political authority of the Commission. It is not simply a question of finding a single candidate. All the party political groups should find their own champion, and the procedure provided for by the Convention could easily and simply be brought into early use by us all in June and July.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the declaration by Mrs Martens could be mine entirely. I would, however, like to add the following. This sensitive and appalling issue came to light thanks to the openness of the Catholic press and to Catholic researchers who had drawn up a report. Eventually, the Catholic Church hierarchy reacted to, and condemned, these events. I also remember bishops, from the Netherlands for example, making statements. So why are we rubbing salt into the wound of the Roman Catholic Church? As a Protestant, I must say that I am very surprised about this, to say the least. I read an interview in the Dutch press with one of the people who started the ball rolling and in which the background was explained. She says: “We are against the Pope visiting the European Parliament. We must make it more difficult in this way. Secondly, we would really like to give as good as we get with regard to all the Pope’s admonitions in the moral sphere.” If that is the background, there is so much false fire on the altar, to put it in Protestant terms, that it is absolutely impossible for me to back this resolution. I also think that those nuns who suffered in the course of these events are now also being abused politically, something about which I am ashamed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, obviously the diverse manifestations of democratic resistance to the dangers of an uncontrolled expansion of the WTO's powers have given pause for thought. It seems, however, that well-intentioned appeals are not going to prevent it from going down this path. It is simply the case that trade in goods and money transactions are governed by the law of the market. The market is, by its very nature, immoral. Those who want to maintain their hold on the market have to make a profit or else they go under. The WTO has obviously set itself the goal of cutting the market off from the demands of society at large and even from parliaments. The opinions now on the table at least show an awareness of the problem. It is right to take small steps. However, far more ambitious steps must follow. We cannot wash the coat of the bear which the WTO has become without getting the animal itself wet. Our aim must be to work towards a new global economic order which distributes the wealth of this earth differently, justly and fairly, overcomes poverty, establishes and guarantees broad-based democratic cooperation giving parliaments a voice, and makes independent economic development possible for all countries. The European Parliament should do everything within its power to challenge the Council and the Commission to do this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner erheugen, I would like to mention that the Bulgarian authorities have in the meantime apologised to me, as I myself experienced this with my German passport. I would now like to put aside this question because I believe that you will continue to work in this area and that this problem will be resolved, if at all possible, before 2007.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, during the last plenary I asked for the House to observe one minute's silence for the needless death of children and other civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of bombings by the occupying forces and for this to take place at today's sitting. The President in the chair at that sitting told me that he would raise the matter with the Bureau. I should therefore like to know whether you discussed it and whether you raised the question of observing one minute's silence.

Political group: GUE-NGL