GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are now discussing Commissioner Diamantopoulou’s second tour de force. With the framework strategy and the new action programme in place, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities – working under intense time pressure, and restricted to only a few official languages – has now, with a great deal of good will, introduced 60 proposed amendments. I hope that the President-in-Office of the Council, Nicole Péry, will be able to get through the programme in the Council in November. I hope there will be no repeat of the fourth action programme, when the erstwhile Federal Government under Helmut Kohl halved the budget, no less. Time is pressing. Women are still not adequately represented in politics and in economic decision-making processes. According to EUROSTAT, approximately 77% of the recipients of low wages are women. Depending on the country and sector, women earn up to 30% less than their male counterparts. The framework strategy must be brought to bear in this regard as well. All the equal opportunities initiatives should be coordinated under one roof and translated into the five, specific, strategic goals. Other speakers have made the same point. That would be the logical way to implement the gender mainstreaming concept. I am expecting the male protagonists to at last get down to work and do their bit to counter inherited notions of gender roles and stereotypes. We also want to see the leading politicians on our side, and call upon President Prodi, the Council, and the Ministers, to take full account of the gender aspect, for example in the context of the European Union’s foreign relations, and particularly where the enlargement process is concerned. More emphasis should be placed on establishing links between women’s organisations, which is something I called for back when I was rapporteur for the interim report on the fourth action programme. Our parliamentary committee plans to stage a conference on this specialist policy area, together with the parliamentary committees of our Member States and of the candidate countries, in November in Berlin. I am hoping that this will provide the necessary political impetus for the implementation of the programme and framework strategy. This is where Europe will again lead the way in the fight for women’s rights in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr Speaker, our group supports this report. Cooperation between the EU and Russia should be continued and developed. The agreement now under discussion will provide a better framework than ever for this. The cooperation process has been slowed down by the fact that it has become fragmented and is being administered by many different authorities, especially on the Russian side. The agreement now under consideration will bring the widespread cooperation activities within the sphere of a more effective coordination. I would like to emphasise the importance of cooperation, particularly in the field of environmental and climatic research, and within the framework of information technology and telecommunications. The cooperation that takes place in these areas also reflects positively on Russia’s neighbours. Through techno-scientific cooperation we can also promote the exploitation of natural resources of North-Western Russia, which are of great importance for the future development of the economies of both Russia and the EU. At the same time, I would hope that developing techno-scientific cooperation will direct practical cooperative projects to the right places and improve, inter alia, the implementation and success of the research framework programme and projects funded through the TACIS and the Interreg programmes. Practical projects must be coordinated more efficiently; they must be increasingly target-oriented and their timetabling and scheduling improved. We must also see to it that projects that have been started are brought to a conclusion within their allocated time span. We must also insist that the Russian side adhere to their part of the project. In recent years, many projects have been implemented ineffectively, they have dragged on for an unreasonable long period, and some of them have even been abandoned. To a certain extent, this has detracted from the interest in practical cooperation with Russia. The results of research work must increasingly be utilised for improving the environmental conditions and economy of Russia. I believe that the cooperation agreement will further the implementation of these objectives.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I might well continue where my fellow MEP, Mrs Theorin, left off. It is as if many of the things we take very seriously when we make speeches are not really taken seriously in practice. Women’s rights and legal position are among these things. Others are international law and human rights. When the talk turns to Afghanistan, I find myself thinking automatically of those people, including European citizens, who are imprisoned in Guantánamo. What has become of their rights? What legal system do they come under? None at all. The United States does not respect international law – of that we are well aware – but nor does it respect its own law. I find it bizarre that we have a resolution by Parliament that takes no account at all of the fact that a number of European citizens are in a prison camp and that we do not know for how long they will be there, what their future prospects are and what legal system they come under. I also find this in stark contrast to the fact that, in other situations, there is a demand that international law be complied with. A very good example is Iraq, which we demand comply with international stipulations and UN resolutions. In that way, we give people the impression – in Afghanistan too – that there are two standards in this world, namely that which we demand that they themselves uphold and that which we, for our part, are willing to uphold, because it is we who have the power and thus, in our view, also the right to make demands. Another area in which we face similar problems is in relation to the massacre in Mazar-i-Sharif. There is quite a lot to suggest that there were American soldiers present. Some people maintain that they took part in the massacre. There is much, however, to suggest that they were present. That being said, we are doing nothing to have this matter thoroughly investigated and have the people responsible brought to trial. I think these double standards are causing us problems. They make matters more difficult in relation to Afghanistan and the Afghan people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, although we are moving in the right direction, not everything in the garden is rosy. For example, some States do not respect the basic right to education and the use of one’s own language. In the Basque Country, where, despite the problems we face, we can choose the language of our children’s education, the Spanish Supreme Court has declared that it is illegal for local authorities to join together to promote the development of the language, in a clear example of how legal interpretations can be forced through as a result of political intentions and of how not all rights are respected here and now in the European Union. How can we justify our habit of talking about human rights in places thousands of kilometres away while at home we do the opposite and vary our positions according to commercial and political interests? Chirac speaks of the rights of the Inuits in Quebec, but ignores linguistic rights in France. He condemns Jospin for calling Hezbollah by its name while he pontificates about other types of organisations and prides himself on his anti-terrorist cooperation with Spain. The Spanish Prime Minister speaks of Chechnya as if it were an internal affair, thereby clearly allying himself with the extermination of the Chechen people. This approach to politics, based on pure hypocrisy, is entirely unacceptable to us. Finally, for the Basque citizens whom I represent, there can be no excuses based on internal affairs or on political opportunism. For us there are simply, here and elsewhere, people, citizens, with unalienable rights on which we wish to base our coexistence.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, when Mr Gorostiaga uses the word “dialogue” in his tribute to the murdered Ernest Lluch, he is insulting his memory and insulting the ideas for which ETA murdered him. Mr Gorostiaga, I have profound contempt for the terrorists of ETA, but the people who use this democratic Parliament in a cowardly fashion to justify the murders they commit deserve the same contempt. Mr Gorostiaga, you are a disgrace to this Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am sorry, I was confused about the time. I should first like to congratulate my colleague Mr Ceyhun for the work he has done and his efforts to cover all the sensitive issues surrounding these two initiatives. Secondly, I must stress to this House something which is an absolute priority for the future of the European Union, our society and the political project we are constructing from here. It is the need for a Community immigration and asylum policy, something we will not be able to achieve without commitment, effort and hard work from the European Union’s political institutions. I should like to reiterate a number of issues that this House and the Council must take clearly into account when making future decisions. It is essential to distinguish between the disinterested humanitarian aiding of illegal immigration and the activities of criminal networks as laid down in Article 27 of the Schengen Convention. It is also important to distinguish clearly between those who benefit directly and actively from illegal immigration, such as those who organise and take part in the transport of illegal immigrants, and on the other hand the passive and indirect beneficiaries, who are the ones who profit from the work of illegal immigrants. It must also be stressed that the economic benefit itself may be direct or indirect, depending on the nature of the activity performed. I realise, however, that carriers cannot be held liable for transporting persons who request political asylum immediately upon arrival within the territory of a Member State. Carriers have neither the ability nor the authority to assess the admissibility of an application for asylum, and hence I understand that under no circumstances can they be directly or indirectly persuaded through these instruments to carry out an assessment of suitability. Sanctions must be proportionate and balanced and the punishment must be made to fit the crime. The means and ends must strictly respect the obligations accepted by the countries which are parties to the 1951 Geneva Convention as regards asylum-seekers entering an EU Member State. The purpose of such measures must never be to dissuade asylum-seekers from exercising their legitimate right to seek the protection of a signatory state, since this would constitute an infringement of the Geneva Convention. Lastly, I should like to point out that the Member States need to be aware that certain regions of the European Union are particularly affected by illegal immigration, and because of their geographical position they are having to shoulder much of the burden imposed by the immigration policies, so budget lines should be developed to allow compensatory payments, which will increase solidarity within the European Union in this area.

Political group: PSE
I have voted in favour of the resolution. We Swedish sincerely welcome the fact that the division of Europe can now be a thing of the past. The Second World War has thus been brought to a definitive end. The EU is no longer just a form of West European cooperation, but not far from being pan-European. The EU would nonetheless be seriously threatened as a peace project if, in the future, the Council were to give Turkey a date for entering into membership negotiations while that country continues with the military occupation, begun in 1974, of 37% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, that is to say of a future Member State. I therefore find it deeply regrettable that Amendment No 13, which calls attention to this fact, was not adopted. Amendment No 10 by the Christian Democratic Group of the European People’s Party provided scope for a revised aid strategy for Turkey on the basis of a special partnership. It was unfortunate that this alternative and complement to Turkey’s membership ambitions was voted down, with 201 ‘yes’ votes, 238 ‘no’ votes and 16 abstentions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for Amendment No 100 to the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report on the European Parliament’s proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference, which, I regret, was not adopted by the House. It laid down that elections to the European Parliament should be held as soon as possible using the same lists of candidates in all 15 Member States, that is to say genuinely European lists. I feel that this amendment is based on a point which brings the citizens much closer to Europe and the European Union: the citizens who are called on to vote realise that the candidates are the same throughout the 15 States, and this would show them that Europe does exist and that there is a reason for its existence. This is why I voted for this amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am afraid that all endeavours to bring the Iraqi crisis to an end without using force have failed. Thus, an intervention is being carried out which, I would point out, is based on at least three United Nations resolutions: 1441, 678 and 686. I share Mr Poettering’s opinion on Saddam Hussein: it is he who is responsible for the current events. He could have avoided armed conflict by putting an end to his bloody dictatorship, as was suggested to him until yesterday afternoon not just by many Members of Parliament but by the Government of Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries too. We cannot compare President Bush to Saddam Hussein. We cannot compare the President of the largest Western democracy to a bloodthirsty criminal autocrat who has annihilated all trace of democracy in Iraq and is the only dictator to have used weapons of mass destruction. I am afraid that Europe has shown itself to be divided on this matter. It is our immediate duty to seek to restore unity to the Union. Today’s European Council, Mr Papandreou, can be the start of a new endeavour to give Europe a single foreign policy and a single defence policy. We can take practical steps to reinvigorate the European action, Commissioner Patten, once the Iraq conflict is over. The Union, together with the United Nations, must take the lead in building the new Iraqi democracy. It will thus have a major role to play which involves, not least, taking powerful, coherent measures to combat terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. However, this politically strong Europe will have to be an interlocutor on an equal footing with the United States, another major leader in international politics, although we cannot, as President Prodi said, hope to build the Europe of tomorrow from a position of opposition to the United States. Moreover, a number of criticisms have been made of the Italian Government which do not deserve a reply, for they are unfounded and were coarsely expressed in the manner of those who always give partisan interests precedence over national and European interests.

Political group: PPE-DE
With the convening of the forthcoming IGC, the process of European Union is topical once again. Once again the discussion is going to be monopolised by the Heads of State and Government. In other words, fifteen people are going to have discussions and decide, behind closed doors, on the fate of more than 350 million individuals. It is therefore easy to understand the public’s lack of interest, given the construction of Europe which is going on behind their back and in areas which are not really of concern to them. In fact, one only need look at the agenda of the IGC: the institutions, enlargement and European defence. The fact is that the prime concerns are the strengthening of executive power, the development of closer relations with liberalism in the countries of Eastern Europe and the relaunch of the militarisation of Europe, particularly by increasing military budgets. Social Europe, used as a foil by the EU, has simply been eliminated from the agenda. All this does is to legitimise the development, on the European scale, of resistance movements anxious to bring in a social charter which would harmonise workers’ main claims towards the highest common denominator. This is why I am voting against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, on 25 December – Christmas Day – of last year, three prominent Albanian Kosovars started a three-week hunger strike in Brussels to bring to the attention of the international community the fate of these prisoners and especially of the many thousands of missing persons. In mid-January of this year, a few thousand Kosovars held a demonstration in front of the Brussels Council building and a delegation was received by the services of Mr Solana and the Portuguese Presidency. We were told that Mr Solana was understanding of these demands but it was also pointed out that – and I quote – the fact of the matter is that it is difficult to do business with a regime such as that of Milosevic. Ladies and gentlemen, Milosevic has now been replaced by Kostunica and I was in Kosovo when Kostunica received a very warm welcome at the Biarritz Summit, and was given several millions of EURO aid unconditionally. However, what has Kostunica done about the problem of prisoners in the meantime? It is true that by way of a symbolic gesture, one of the prisoners, Mrs Flora Brovina has been freed, but that cannot be the end of it, ladies and gentlemen. Our compromise resolution is clearly stipulated in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. We demand a swift release of the political prisoners and an impartial inquiry into the whereabouts of the missing persons. Mr Solana, Mr Patten, I ask you both to put the Kostunica regime sufficiently under pressure to ensure these demands are met. I would like to say the following to Mr Kostunica: you would gain in credibility if you were to take advantage of the forthcoming Christmas celebrations to carry out such an act of goodwill, which can only benefit stability in the region.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, a number of Members would have noticed that at the last Strasbourg part-session there were a number of very close votes. It is fortunate that Mr McMillan-Scott decided to travel a day before any votes in this particular part-session, because it is my concern and the concern of many of my colleagues that the inadequacies of the transport arrangements to Strasbourg are having a direct impact on who is here to vote on certain subjects and could sway an issue in the vote in this place. Once our accession colleagues arrive, this problem is only going to get worse because they have even worse connections to Strasbourg. It is obviously an issue that is not going to go away. My French colleagues who are going off for their very good lunch now should remember that this Parliament will only legitimise itself when it can choose where it sits. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Gargani report (A5-0205/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against the Frahm report. I am not unaware of the health and environment problems caused by ‘persistent organic pollutants’. But in dealing with this kind of problem, our Parliament is exceeding its legislative role. We have just adopted the ‘better lawmaking’ report. At the same time, we continue to voice pious hopes, ignore the principle of subsidiarity, forbid governments to conduct illusory ‘awareness campaigns’ and multiply bureaucratic procedures. A Parliament authorises or prohibits. It does not produce (bad) literature.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I understand that we are to vote on the last two resolutions, concerning Guatemala and the non-proliferation agreement, without a debate. I am not going to object to that, but I would note the anomaly in Parliament being able to devote half an hour’s discussion to football hooliganism – and I am nonetheless a great football enthusiast – but not having a spare minute to discuss the biggest form of hooliganism we have, namely the presence of nuclear weapons in the world. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, thank you very much for providing these clarifications. Allow me to express the wish that is dearest to my heart in the form of an additional question: what special measures will the Commission endeavour to take in the future, with a view to working towards the harmonisation of the social security systems, professional qualifications and the social dimension in all areas? It was extremely interesting to hear how matters stand in this respect, and to learn that the trend is more positive than it has been hitherto. However, I believe we must convince the people of the European Union that freedom of establishment is not a hollow expression which ultimately applies in full to tourists, rather, they must understand that for people who work, or have worked – firstly in terms of the insurance system and then in terms of the pensions system – freedom of establishment is a reality, and not a hollow expression. I believe we must join forces to this end, in order to try and persuade the Council to frame policy in this area that is more transparent, progressive and forward-looking.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Parliament rapporteurs would like to make us think that creating the Single European Sky would be a noble cause and a big step forward that Europeans should welcome. The Council, however, has no need to embellish reality, which is why there are differences in formulation. The differences in formulation, however, hide the reality more than highlighting it. The European Union is an association dominated by rival States that hold on to their borders, even in the sky. What they call their sovereignty is only the civil and military defence of their egotistical interests and those of their wealthy classes. Although the sky is single by nature, it is not yet single for human society, and the European institutions are clearly not managing to put an end to this aberration. The expression ‘single sky’, however, is being used to cover up an operation aimed at making further inroads into the public service of air traffic control for the benefit of operators, suppliers and private service providers. That is what it is about. The European authorities have already authorised the privatisation of the British body responsible for air traffic control. Some of the Eurocontrol rules have also been modified to enable private companies to make profits in the air traffic control sector. Air traffic control unions in Europe are rightly condemning this rampant privatisation and its consequences both for the safety of flights and for the staff’s working conditions. A year ago, at the time of the Lake Constance air disaster, we saw what tragedies could result from the introduction of the law of profit into this field, even if only to a limited extent. Despite that, and while hypocritically defending themselves, the European authorities are persisting and signing. They are pushing even further towards dismantling this public service, towards the race for profits and cutting the sky up into sectors that can be allocated to private operators. The airlines will undoubtedly do well out of it, but the air traffic control staff and passenger safety will not. We are therefore once again expressing our opposition to this increased privatisation of the sky, which is damaging both to users and to air transport employees in the broad sense, and to the people in the flight path.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Walter is absolutely correct because, in the previous vote, we voted against the amendment to put the EUR 8.4 million in the reserve or on the line. We are therefore left with only a p.m., so we cannot retain the wording of the paragraph in its current form.

Political group: PSE