GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, in approving proposals on traceability limits for genetically modified organisms in raw materials, all we are doing is to open the floodgates to the gradual but constant release and movement of genetically modified food and feed. Our fears are not unfounded, if account is taken of the increasingly suffocating pressure from the USA to import genetically modified products. The arrangement setting upper permissible contamination limits creates a de facto situation with which we radically disagree, first because it shifts the responsibility to the consumer, who is not, however, in a position to evaluate the risks inherent in food produced from or containing GMOs and, secondly, because it paves the way for the suffocating dependence of farmers on the mainly American multinational biotechnology companies, which have sole rights to produce and sell genetically modified seed and the agrochemicals that accompany them. Apart from anything else, the use of GMOs will result in the genetic erosion of non-genetically modified varieties, with unforeseeable consequences for biodiversity. We must fight to ban imports of products made either from genetically modified raw materials or containing GMOs, not for limits on how these products are moved and traced. Finally, we disapprove overall of the use of GMOs and the 'could be worse' philosophy. Any concession on this position cannot but be at the expense of farming, the equilibrium of the ecosystem and consumer health, which is why we shall abstain from the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, African countries have made solemn commitments to democracy and the protection of human rights on numerous occasions: under the NEPAD agreement and the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement, to name but two. However, the chaos and the oppression of the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe has led to no satisfactory response from Zimbabwe's neighbours, who seem deaf to the cries of anguish from the oppressed people of that country. Not only have southern African countries been unwilling to exert pressure on Mr Mugabe, they have also allowed him to dictate the terms of Africa's relationship with Europe, and that is worse. The European Union's relationship with both the African Union and the Southern African Development Community has been damaged by African states' insistence that banned Zimbabweans should be included in meetings in Europe. The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly has also been severely disrupted. This not only undermines the founding principles of NEPAD and the ACP-EU relationship, but also means that major problems burdening Africa – external debt, AIDS, food security, conflict prevention, good governance and human rights – cannot be properly addressed. Conditions in Zimbabwe are now spiralling out of control. There are terrible shortages, and oppression is increasingly widespread and brutal. A once prosperous country has been ruined and destroyed. African states' refusal to take the initiative on Zimbabwe means that it is even more critical that EU sanctions against the ZANU-PF regime be strengthened. This House has already called for them to be extended on six separate occasions. To date, the Council has failed to heed these calls. The EU travel ban against the Mugabe regime has regularly been breached in its first year and subsequently weakened to facilitate the entry of banned Zimbabweans into Europe. The resolution before us today calls for renewal of EU measures when they expire on 20 February and the introduction of tough new sanctions. It calls for the right of residence in Europe of those subject to the travel ban to be rescinded, for members of their families to be barred from employment and educational institutions in the European Union, for high-profile economic links with Zimbabwe that have given the regime international prestige to be curtailed, for those providing financial backing to the ZANU-PF regime to be identified, and for measures to be imposed against them. Yet again this House calls on the Council to respond to its clearly expressed wish: real, effective actions against the ZANU-PF regime in Zimbabwe now.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, US President Bush branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil with Iraq and Iran. These unwise words evidently caused North Korea to believe they were on George Bush's hit list. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in east Asia opens up an appalling vista. This is potentially a much more serious conflict than that in Iraq. Already last October, the government of North Korea was reportedly running a secret uranium enrichment programme in blatant violation of the KEDO Agreement. In December, North Korea cancelled its membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expelled the International Atomic Energy Authority weapons inspectors and announced that it would reactivate a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant producing weapons grade material. I believe, however, that KEDO was ill designed from the start, neither addressing North Korea's immediate energy needs, nor delivering technology adaptable to the country's infrastructure. The developments on the uranium enrichment programme led the European Parliament in October last year to freeze the EUR 20 million EU contributions to KEDO for 2003, and the US administration to stop its oil supplies to North Korea under the KEDO Agreement. It is now inconceivable that Commissioner Patten, as he himself has acknowledged, could come to the European Parliament and request money from the EU funds for nuclear transfers. Even if he assures this House that the funding will be used for the non-nuclear components of KEDO, the transfer of such technology is now so evidently dangerous that a complete review of KEDO, deleting the nuclear technology transfers, is necessary. I would ask the Commission to respond to this point in particular, and to ensure that the money be spent on a proposal to provide clean energy from North Korea's electricity plants, by reconstructing its ancient conventional energy plants so as to make them efficient, by contributing to the proposed gas pipeline from Irkutsk as well as developing the great potential in Korea for wind and solar energy, bio-mass and geothermics.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I want to thank you for your answer. I want to ask a follow-up question which bears some resemblance to the one Mr Sjöstedt asked. We both come from Sweden. In our country, we pay our tax in the form of local taxes because the services concerned are local. We have extensive services, too. We have problems stemming from the lack of confidence in politicians and, not least, in European politicians here in Parliament. How do you think that public confidence in ourselves as politicians would be affected if a situation were to arise in which we obtained the right to use services where we live – education, health care etc – but, at the same time, did not pay any tax and did not contribute? How do you think a system like that would affect people’s confidence in ourselves as politicians?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the approval of the resolution on regional and minority languages will provide a fitting end to the European Year of Languages. It is satisfying for me and for other Catalan Members: Obiols i Germà, Terrón i Cusí, Colom i Naval, Jové, Mayol, Gasòliba i Böhm and Ferrer. It is very positive that a resolution is recognising the equal value and dignity of all European languages and urging the Commission and Council to act decisively in this field and to find a permanent legal basis. We regret that our initial proposal, which called for full recognition, has not been accepted. This resolution demonstrates an unacceptable situation: the fact that the European Union, which derives its wealth from its diversity, should have so many European languages seeking a legal basis in order to be supported is – I repeat – regrettable. Yesterday, a report requested by the Research Directorate-General and presented to the Intergroup on minority languages reflected these difficulties. My language, Catalan, is one of these languages. It is the seventh language when compared to the eleven official languages and the ninth when compared to the 22 languages following enlargement. A recent conversation I had with my friend and fellow MEP, Mr Sakellariou will demonstrate the situation. I said to him: Jannis, the language you speak with your parents – Greek – can be spoken in this House; the language you use with your countrymen – German – can be used in this House; the one you use with your wife – Spanish – can be used in this House. The language I use with my parents, in my work and my life and which I use with my wife not only cannot be used in this House, but we are seeking a legal basis so that it can be supported. You will understand that my only objective here is the recognition of Catalan as an official language of the European Union. This hope is better expressed by my friend, the poet Jordi Gabarró. He says in Catalan: 'Demà, en un futur de convivència, la raó ha de guanyar'. In English: 'Tomorrow, in a future of coexistence, reason must prevail'. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, after the debate on Chechnya, the debate on the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report would begin. Therefore, what we could do is to postpone Question Time a little. I think this is a reasonable request.

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of lifting the ban on sales of oral tobacco, so called snuff, in the EU. I totally understand that all tobacco products are dangerous to human health and cause different types of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. However, I think that all tobacco products, which may have different levels of harmfulness, should be treated in a way that is compatible with the level of danger they represent to human health. I also want the different restrictions to be based on scientific facts. That is why I tabled an amendment with my colleagues to do the monitoring of health effects by the year 2002 instead of 2005 which was the initial proposal from the Commission. This proposal to change the timetable is also very important from the public health point of view. Unfortunately my proposal was not adopted. I still think that even if the scientific data come as late as the year 2004, this information will be very important for us Members of the European Parliament, when we create future legislation in the field of tobacco products.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Monti, ladies and gentlemen, a European, open, competitive and coordinated market economy needs an effective competition policy. Without a properly administered competition policy, neither the European Union’s economy nor its external manifestation, in the form of the euro, will ever be able to achieve its full potential. Only a company that is competitive in the Internal Market without State aid can also be competitive in the global market. However, in shaping European competition policy we have to ensure that it does not limit the opportunities for companies to succeed in the wider, global economy as well. As Mrs Riis-Jørgensen quite rightly emphasises in her report and speech, there is a danger, particularly with regard to the small Member States, that too narrow a concept of the market is used to define a dominant market position, which makes it harder for companies in small Member States to become sufficiently large players in the area of global competition. Besides, a dominant market position is not even a problem unless there is evidence that this position is being abused. Only if the dominant market position leads to adversity with regard to consumers and competitors must we tackle the situation using stringent measures, as you, Mr Monti, have done. As Mrs Riis-Jørgensen states in point 15 of her report, we have to focus on the harm caused as a result of measures restricting competition, and not so much on what sort of economic players are involved. Special account must be taken of the position of small and medium-sized enterprises. Small-scale State aid might be more harmful to an SME than people think if the market is a small one. For that reason it is good that this report of Mrs Riis-Jørgensen’s also emphasises the importance of this. In his report, my colleague, Mr Evans, thanks you, Mr Monti, for having got to grips with the issue of State aid policy. Massive amounts of State aid are still a problem in many sectors. Although State aid may, on the surface, seem a good solution, when viewed in the longer term it very rarely produces lasting positive results. I certainly do not want to condemn all State aid. There is also aid that is necessary, as laid down the Treaties. In the long run, however, levels of State aid will have to fall. State aids lead to the postponement of inevitable structural change, to the distortion of competition, and breed inefficiency. In a sense, State aids prop up Potemkin villages, which at some stage will come crashing down. Then it is the private consumer and the taxpayer who foot the bill.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to emphasise the points that must be considered to enable us genuinely to take the Mediterranean into account in the common fisheries policy. We must introduce an integrated policy through genuine cooperation at international level, whilst striving hard not to give in to a lax attitude, which would have a detrimental effect on our work. This can be achieved by revising existing legislation, namely Regulation (EC) No 1626/94, and by adapting the regulation on minimum landing sizes, technical measures and fishing gear to each region. We must also carry out in-depth research to enable us to develop an accurate idea as to the potential of anchovy, mackerel, blue-finned tunny and other fish; in other words, how much fishing effort can be supported by the various species. We can do this by paying greater attention to the members of the Mediterranean-specific industrial tribunals and by stepping up the activities of the Regional Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, which must be given effective jurisdiction and resources so that it can take action, both in terms of deep sea and inshore fishing. I would like to thank our excellent rapporteur, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, as well as my colleagues, Mrs Langenhagen and Mrs McKenna, for visiting the Mediterranean coast, particularly Sète, Mèze and Port-la-Nouvelle, for supporting these proposals and for coming to find out what the situation is on the ground.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The propaganda-driven support for economic recovery for the Brussels summit is confined to means used a thousand times before: neo-Keynesian methods and ‘New Deal’ type mini programmes which are now proven to be unable to bring about positive results for the workers and which increase exploitation, unemployment and poverty. These measures merely safeguard contracts for the large companies and support the concentration of capital, especially when accompanied by measures to cut back the workers' employment and social rights. Pension rights and pension funds are again in the line of fire and the generalisation of ‘flexibility’ in employment and wage freezes are being promoted in the name of competitiveness and reducing labour costs. Immigration and respect for human rights are also in the line of fire. We are seeing coordinated measures to deport, extradite and ‘move on’ immigrants, border guards on land and sea and other measures which offend human dignity and guarantee even greater exploitation of immigrants. And all just a few days after the start of the Intergovernmental Conference which is being called upon to secure capitalism constitutionally, to redistribute power between the powerful and to cede even more national sovereignty to the Euro-unifying centre. It is certain that the peoples will not remain inert in the face of the further intensification of the attack and will develop even further their fight to resist and counter attack.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your detailed reply to the question put by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has been considering how we can find a way of guaranteeing a free flow of information and freedom of choice for viewers in the digital era. How can we achieve this objective? No further debate is needed, we held our debate when we passed a resolution on the telecommunications package and, more particularly, on the framework directive. Today, and this is why we asked the question, we wanted the Commission to tell us what it can do to help implement the resolutions we passed then. And I am grateful because I think the Commission's statements have pointed to a constructive way forward here. However, I should like to reiterate that we have three basic resolutions. First, open interfaces, so-called APIs are not enough; these open interfaces need to be widely accessible, i.e. they must be interoperable. That is the objective we decided on together in the framework directive. Secondly, we decided that the Member States should promote the introduction of interoperable technology. Thirdly, we decided that we had until July 2004 for this voluntary procedure. Parliament is pushing for action in order to bring about a voluntary, user-friendly solution which also guarantees real freedom of choice and pluralism. For that, as you announced today, Commissioner, we need the technology, the standards which meet these requirements, to be published. There is a standard which has already been licensed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, which is responsible for the standards, namely MHP, which is why Parliament's demand is perfectly clear in the resolution we are voting on today. What we want to do is promote the technology that incontrovertibly meets the requirements. Hence the demand and the call in the resolution for the Member States to submit an action plan as quickly as possible – we are saying by the end of this year – as to how this objective can be achieved, so that we have real results by July 2004. So, as you see – and my thanks here to all my honourable friends in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy who helped here – we refer to the resolution and voluntary implementation of this resolution, but in the time specified and for the purpose specified. That is the point of this resolution. We trust that we have the agreement and support of the Commission and the Member States, in the interest of our citizens. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, it is true that Mr Lehne is not here, but please feel free to respond anyway. Your responses will then be conveyed to Mr Lehne. This is a broad debate which reaches much further than the people involved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the central question seems to be whether this Parliament and the European Union show themselves to be sufficiently self-assured to confirm Turkey’s status as a candidate. A failure to do so will provoke a serious crisis in our relations with Turkey. Nobody wants special treatment for Turkey and nobody should ignore the series of problems over the treatment of the Kurds or over the situation in Cyprus. My group believes that the discipline of candidate status will involve Turkey in more serious preparation for membership, a stronger dialogue and greater exposure to European Union culture and politics. Parliament has certainly been dragging its feet on this issue, as the MEDA programme and the financial support for the European strategy show. The Liberal and Green groups have tabled an amendment calling for the clear prospect for membership to be opened up. This would encourage the forces of progress and reform within Turkey and increase the leverage of the European Union upon Turkey’s future development. This position is supported by the Cypriot and Greek governments and Parliament would be reactionary should it fail to be in the vanguard of progress here. I plead to all those who want Turkey to modernise on the basis of its European traditions to support our amendment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, too many tragedies have taken place, both inside and outside stadiums: incidents which are evidence of the imbalance and social unease of individuals, a culture where strength is what matters and violence prevails over reason. The resolution reiterates Parliament's concern over the spread of hooliganism, and calls for preventive measures which I support. However, it is crucial that in this, of all situations, the difficulty of their task does not make the forces of the law lose their heads as well. At this point, I would like to protest at the behaviour of the Dutch police towards some Italian journalists who were filming the humiliating treatment of a group of disabled people who were being carried up the steps because there were not enough free seats for them. The journalists were prevented from doing their job and were beaten up, thrown to the ground and arrested. The film shown this morning here in Parliament contained pictures which leave no doubt as to the express intention of the police to suppress the freedom of the press. Different interpretations have been given of the event, and so we call upon the Dutch authorities to hold an inquiry in order to find out who was responsible, and we demand that this sort of incident is never repeated.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as the shadow rapporteur on the Legal Affairs Committee working with my colleague Mrs Berger, I would like to thank our colleagues on the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee for accepting so many amendments from our committee. I want to focus on those, particularly by talking about some of the complexities of this regulation and making it work in practice. But, first of all, I want to join in the congratulations to Professor Monti on having the courage to move ahead with such a bold and a wide-ranging reform. I remember sharing a platform with him at a conference back in May 2000 when he set out his concerns very clearly. He has worked through that consistently. I am lending my support even though I am one of the relatively few people who have not been lobbied by the Commissioner. I know he has been very active in lobbying round Parliament for his proposal. I want to declare an interest because I have, in my former years, been a director of sales for a major car company. I have managed distribution all over the world. I am pleased that you see, Commissioner, that independent competing dealers will continue to be the foundation of providing good quality sales and service for consumers. In that connection I encourage colleagues to support the amendments that my colleague Mrs Villiers has proposed to reinforce that independence. It is crucial. I want to say to you, Commissioner, that these regulations are exceptionally complex. You have given dealers a huge range of new weapons. They need to be encouraged to use those quickly and you will need to produce clear and unambiguous guidelines, on both sales and service. We must not underestimate the service you have done for consumers by opening up competition in after-sales and spare parts. That will in fact mean more to most consumers on an annual basis. They only buy cars relatively infrequently. This across-the-board approach will be good for consumers and I encourage you to make sure that those independent dealers really have the business security they need to invest and take advantage of your proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE