GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The initiative before us today concerns the enforcement of national, administrative expulsion measures against foreigners, even where they have since moved to another Member State. The purpose of this proposal is, quite patently, to make it easier to take measures to expel third-country nationals. To that end, it introduces an instrument for the mutual recognition of these decisions. Accordingly, an expulsion decision taken in one Member State can be enforced in another. At first sight it may seem quite laudable to try to regulate and control the movement of foreigners whom our Member States have decided to expel. This would be in line with the conclusions of the Tampere European Council of October 1999, aimed at better migration management. Careful examination, however, soon shows up the total ambiguity and imprecise nature of this initiative and the legal loopholes it contains. Now that it is high time the European Union countries adopted a genuine immigration policy, what are we to think of a document that not only does not regulate expulsion issues at all, but which also seems to show complete disregard for the real situations faced by people? To address the immigration problem also means this: to dare to look at these non-Community citizens threatened with expulsion or being expelled who, having entered the closely-guarded Schengen area, find themselves battling against recalcitrant administrations. If the European Union wishes to be and remain an area of freedom, justice and security, it will have to adopt legal instruments that are not only effective but also take the human factor into account. Not measures which, like this initiative, are basically aimed only at establishing a security policy under which foreigners, perceived as a threat, can no longer enjoy their rights and freedoms and the word justice has become meaningless. Moreover, it is difficult to accept the legal basis chosen for this proposal, namely Article 63(3) of the EC Treaty. That article is concerned only with immigration measures taken in specific circumstances, and in particular the conditions under which a third-country national can be sent back or expelled, against his will, to his country of origin. The present proposal for a directive does not address these matters. It is confined simply to the mutual recognition of decisions already taken. The proposal does not, therefore, set out to lay down Community rules on expulsion. It would therefore be dangerous to adopt an initiative of this kind to tackle an issue as sensitive as immigration. Any rules adopted in this regard must respect the humanitarian and universalist values that underpin Europe. Otherwise, our Community policies would become meaningless. - Hatzidakis Report (A5-0040/2001)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, given that they are essential for our progress, we need to increase funding for priority projects to develop our trans-European networks and also to prioritise rail, air and sea transport and their interoperability, as more sustainable alternatives to roads that have a lesser impact on the environment. Out of the fourteen projects that were agreed as priorities at the Essen European Council in 1996, so far only three have been completed. Among the projects that I really wish to see is the Southern high-speed rail network between Madrid, Vitoria and Dax, which is still in the project design phase. Given the limitations of Community resources, I think that it is advisable to postpone incorporating any new priority projects until the first ones have been completed, and to wait until the guidelines are reviewed when enlargement to new Member States takes place. I also propose, as I state in my amendments, that the high-speed rail network can be achieved not only through building new lines but also by improving the condition of existing lines, in order to prevent further impacts on the countryside and the surrounding environment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the aim of the proposed regulation on sugar, which comes under the austere budgetary approach agreed in Berlin, is to make drastic cuts to overall agricultural spending. In order to justify these spending cuts, an attempt is made to paint a dismal picture of the current situation, thereby paving the way for drastic restrictions on quotas, prices and farmers' incomes and, ultimately, drastic cuts in Community production. In order to avoid the social tensions which directly applying such pioneering measures would provoke, the Commission's chosen method is to apply them gradually, until such time as they can all be applied, without respite, under a new regulation to be approved and to apply from the 2003-2004 marketing year. As part of this method, it proposes to freeze nominal prices at 1983-84 levels for a further two years, thereby cutting actual prices and incomes, irrespective of the fact that the extended freeze on sugar beet prices eroded actual prices by 33% between 1982 and 1999. It also proposes to reduce quotas by 115 000 tonnes and to abolish storage so that the Community budget can save EUR 300 million a year. These proposals will drastically reduce the actual price of beet and farmers' incomes. Further reductions in quotas, together with similar cuts in all agricultural produce, will leave even more farmers high and dry and yet, there is not a single proposal as to what crops they should grow. Because these transitional measures form part of systematic cuts across the board... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I had to hurry when I noticed my electronic gadgetry up there in my office on the twelfth floor was telling me the list of speakers was being worked through at a rate of knots. It seemed it was the representatives of our political group that were going at such a rate, and I did not notice. I am a little out of breath. Hopefully, however, it will not have an effect on the matter in hand. It was easy to agree with the explanations given in section 6 by the rapporteur, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, as to why Parliament wishes to adopt the Directive under discussion in accordance with the common position. As so many have already said, the matter is urgent, and I agree. Stressing the importance of the review clause is only prudent in such urgent legislative plans as these. I am satisfied that, as in the directive on electronic money for which I was rapporteur, a review clause is to be included. The directive in hand is immensely important as regards the competitiveness of the EU. It is pointless to deny that a veritable race is going on between the various continents in the area of electronic commerce. There is competition with regard to speed and innovation. From the point of view of unemployment within Europe, which remains high, we should remember that it is the early bird that catches the worm. New jobs will be created where the new technology is first introduced. We cannot watch from the wings while Europe consistently lags behind the United States and other global challengers. On the other hand, Parliament will not solve the challenges of e-commerce by intervening itself in a big way or through regulation. Wisdom is not always a characteristic of politicians, be they in the Commission, the Council, or in this Chamber. Too much regulation will freeze commerce over the Internet and prevent it from adapting to new circumstances and technical developments. This must also be borne in mind, especially in relation to the second reading of the copyright directive soon to take place here. To derive maximum benefit from e-commerce we have to ensure there is real competition in the telecommunications networks. Like Mrs Niebler, I would also like to thank Mr Liikanen, and express my gratitude for the work the Commission has done with such determination in this area. Only through competition will we be able to reduce costs, and thus increase the length of time people use the Internet, as well as increase the volume of electronic commerce. If we just sit here talking about details, we will not manage to lay down even elementary up-to-date standards for electronic commerce. How do we imagine we will be prepared for the next stage, m-commerce, or wireless commerce, if we cannot meet the demands of e-commerce? That is why I support the previous speakers regarding the adoption of the common position with no amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the Commissioner, on the speed with which a proposal has been presented to Parliament, the rapporteur, on the important and serious work he has done, which has allowed us to discuss the proposal today and approve it tomorrow, and the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Regional Policy, because their work will pass into the annals of the European Parliament’s history. Mr President, I would like to highlight four criteria and finally mention a material error which has slipped into the proposal we are going to vote on tomorrow. Firstly, I would like to express my positive view of the adoption of the qualitative criterion by the committee, and therefore by Parliament, and I hope this will be recognised by the Commission and the Council. Secondly, I would have liked the definition of ‘drought’ to have been made much clearer amongst the disasters to be incorporated, despite the fact that the Commission and several speakers have expressed the view that it is covered by the definition of disasters. From experience, I would prefer definitions to be much more specific and much clearer. Thirdly, I believe it is positive that there is mention and clarification of the fact that it is the Member States who are the interlocutors with the Commission on the Fund we are talking about, in order that we may provide a rapid and effective solution. Fourthly, since I come from the Balearic Islands, I would like to express my gratitude at the approval of the amendment clearly incorporating the islands and the outermost regions; this brings us back to the issue I mentioned before in the context of drought: the situations must be clearly defined so that there are no doubts when this type of dramatic situation arises and requires an immediate response. Finally, Mr President, please allow me to request that the services of Parliament review Paragraph 3 of Article 3 in Amendment No 13. I tabled an amendment which requested the inclusion of urban areas in the final paragraph. I understand that this amendment was approved in the Committee on Regional Policy; in fact, in the justification for what is proposed for the vote tomorrow it is made perfectly clear that, in the amendment being approved, the cleaning up of cities is included. However, what was voted for in the Committee on Regional Policy was not taken up, despite the fact that it appears in the justification. I assume that this is an omission and I would be grateful if it could be resolved before the vote tomorrow. We believe that the incorporation of the urban areas is extremely important in terms of their quantification and repair, and in terms of the concentration of human beings found in them, and immediate action is therefore required. The vote within the Committee on Regional Policy was truly significant.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, last Friday, there was an extremely serious incident in Rome, prejudicial to freedom of information in the European Union: a judge ordered the searching of the premises of a major newspaper and the seizing of news material. I am speaking as a journalist to a President who is also a journalist. The police spent 13 hours at the newspaper’s premises and seized a great deal of material, although the alleged offence is only libel by a newspaper article. The Italian judiciary’s decision failed to take into account the decisions of the Council of the European Union and of the European Court of Justice, which have ruled on a number of occasions in favour of journalists’ right not to reveal their sources. In this regard, I would mention Recommendation R-2000/7, issued to the Member States on 8 March 2000 by the Council of the European Union, and the well-known Goodwin judgment also comes to mind, in which the Court of Justice enshrined the professional secrecy of journalists in law. I would also mention the very recent judgment No 33400 of 15 July 2003, which lays down that searches carried out in workplaces to find journalists’ sources constitute a serious violation of freedom of expression; again, the investigators’ aim of identifying the people responsible for information leaks from the law courts is not sufficient to justify the use of such methods. Mr President, I have already tabled a question seeking to safeguard freedom of information both in my country and in the European Union as a whole. I call for the European Parliament to intervene in this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Unfortunately, recent employment statistics for the European Union paint a very black picture. Employment rates are dropping in both Greece and Germany. Substantial measures must be taken at once to increase employment. First, if war in Iraq is averted, this will stimulate investment both globally and in the European Union, where it will impact on employment. Secondly, relaxing the Stability Pact will encourage government intervention to foster growth and employment. Thirdly, employment indicators need to be set so that, as with economic indicators, the Member States’ unemployment policies can be monitored and reinforced. Fourthly, measures are needed to coordinate taxes on SMEs and combat social exclusion and undeclared employment, none of which alone will suffice, at least not in the restrictive sense referred to in the motion for a resolution which I voted against.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency; and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government; and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, High Representative, Commissioner, I have two questions for you, Mr Solana. How, with credibility, are you going to be able to continue promoting closer cooperation on defence and military issues if the Member States are not prepared to comply with common commitments? Meetings are all very well, but it is the result that counts. I also wonder what kind of plans you have to induce governments to ensure that a force of 60 000 troops becomes a reality and not merely figures on a piece of paper. If we look around, the reality is that the CFSP is in danger of becoming nothing more than talk. Take, for example, Germany’s defence savings. These are not only of concern to the defence minister, Mr Scharping. Instead, they also affect the whole of Europe. In my own country, Sweden, the objective, and the commitment towards playing our part, is to supply 2 500 men for EU operations. In the present situation, the national defence can only supply approximately 1 500 men, due to reduced defence spending. If we translate this number into figures for the EU countries as a whole, which is not an unreasonable thing to do if no review is to take place, we shall not have 60 000 men but, at best, 35 000 to 40 000 by the year 2003. My second question concerns the following matter. Some weeks ago, you were evidently misquoted in the German-speaking media, whereupon your press service put out a statement correcting matters. I should like, however, to know the background to this, namely whether, as High Representative, you have been toying at all with the idea of giving Austria special treatment in the context of your assignment and, if so, on whose mandate and with how much leeway.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the 'Prestige' tanker disaster is an appalling tragedy. We must show solidarity here, and – as our Portuguese and Spanish colleagues should know – it must be tangible rather than abstract. That is why the region and the people there need assistance from Europe quickly. I do not think that anyone would question this. We should be aware, however, that this disaster could be repeated any day, Commissioner, because for years it has been the same old story. The combination of an ancient tanker that is only fit for the scrap heap and a flag of convenience – this time of the Bahamas – is usually the cause. Flags of convenience are synonymous with poor quality, a poor vessel, poor technology and a poor crew. Usually the story ends with a coordinated reluctance to claim responsibility so that no one knows any more who is actually to blame for what. That, Commissioner, is the reason for Paragraph 3 of our motion. As soon as all of the information is on the table, we will expect to receive a report from you stating who was responsible for this disaster, when, how and why. I think that a few words will also have to be reserved for the Spanish authorities in this context. I have been surprised at some of the statements made by ministers of transport over the last few days and at the demands that they are now making. Clearly these transport ministers have forgotten that, for example, the regulation on compensation in cases of liability for oil pollution, which the Commission and Parliament have passed, has been lying on the table in the Council for over a year without any action being taken. Commissioner, you have Parliament's full support if you want to put a bomb under these gentlemen in the Council so that we finally get legislation soon. Where incidents of this kind are concerned, we have to call to account the oil companies, the shipowners, the cargo owners and the classification societies. The system of flags of convenience cannot continue in its present form, Commissioner. I appeal to you to consider making a proposal on this. We need European shipping; we need good European vessels with good European crews. Flags of convenience are a blight on the system. Help to eradicate them by making a good Commission proposal. Parliament will give it speedy consideration. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to say that I do not entirely agree with my Danish fellow Member, Mr Haarder, in his attack on Jens-Peter Bonde, who was the campaign leader in Ireland. In fact, I would like to say that there are an incredibly large number of us Danes who are pleased the more he is away from Denmark, because then he is not doing damage there. However, now that Mr Bonde is advocating openness so much, we should like to know whether the DKK 100 000 that he obtained for the campaign came from opponents or from his former comrades on the central committee or in East Germany.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, my point concerns the section of the Minutes on Question Time yesterday evening, when I raised a point of order. First of all, Question Time was put back to 6:30 p.m., then it was announced on the screen that it would begin at 6:50 p.m. In the end it was after 7:00 p.m. before Question Time started. The first part was supposed to last 30 minutes, according to the Agenda; but it lasted much longer. Basically, my problem is that I had questions down – as some other people did – to Commissioner Byrne. We had group meetings at the time and saw on the screen “Question 41”. But by the time I reached the plenary, you had moved on automatically within a few minutes to Question 49. So five or six people had questions down to Commissioner Byrne, but none of us were here to ask the questions. Commissioner Byrne seems to have taken offence at this and seen it as some kind of snub. But it is very difficult for Members to sit right through every single question during Question Time just in case we jump from No 1 to No 99 in a matter of seconds. So, could we please stick to the Agenda: thirty minutes for the first part of Question Time, twenty for the second part and so on. We should not keep changing the Agenda because then it is extremely difficult for us to operate.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I do not know whether this terrible war of neocolonial aggression against Iraq will soon come to an end. What I do know for certain is that I will not be one of those celebrating the victory of the imperialist United States in the war to which the whole world was opposed but which it has been unable to prevent. I believe that, if Europe had succeeded in adopting an unambiguous position, that would have been a barrier to George Bush’s war, but the European Union was divided when it came onto the scene and was therefore impotent and ineffective. It was not enough for Europe not to endorse the United States’ action: Europe as such needed to display explicit opposition. Never has the lack of an unambiguous, united voice been felt so much as in this tragic situation. Never has the need for a European seat on the United Nations Security Council been so keenly felt. Europe can and must carry weight in the world only if it has its own independent foreign and defence policy, with its own independent economic, political forces and military forces too. These forces must by no means be in opposition to the United States but independent from it. Most importantly, Europe must formally confirm its calling and its undertaking to ensure peace, through a simple, clear statement such as that we propose in our amendment: ‘The European Union should reject war as a means of settling international disputes’.

Political group: GUE-NGL