GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we naturally welcome the proposal for a Council directive which is totally in line with the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere conclusions, which stressed the need to finally put in place a policy for integrating third-country nationals. Having said that, we could not support the report. We regret that the proposal does nothing more than set out the conditions governing the residence of third-country nationals and that it does not, in any shape or form, establish a genuine European status for third-country nationals comparable to that of EU citizens. By the same token, family members must enjoy the same rights as the person they are joining. Yet, the way in which it is presented in the report, the right to live a normal family life, which is internationally recognised, does not take into account certain fundamental laws. Although the right to vote was, in principle, adopted in part, the conditions of application are not mentioned. Political rights are, however, an integral part of any integration policy. Fundamental rights are universal and if the universality of rights must be applied without exception, it should also apply to everyone, whether or not they are EU citizens. As for the criteria regarding resources and evaluating the stability of resources, would it not be better to offer all residents access to the labour market, rather than to confine some of them to exclusion? Furthermore, there is no reason why students or persons that have been granted residence with subsidiary protection should be excluded from the scope of the proposal. Firstly, however, the concepts of public order and security, which are reasons for excluding persons from permanent status, require a common definition. Yet these concepts are now left to the discretion of the States or the competent authorities, which gives rise to serious discrimination, particularly towards third-country nationals. Lastly, with regard to procedures, the examination process takes six months, which is far too long. If the application is refused, a redress period, which does not exist, should be provided and this must have a suspensory effect, enabling any attempt at the expulsion of the person to be blocked, in the name of the right to self-defence. My final point is that the directive does not cover the millions of third-country nationals who are residing illegally, but who urgently need a political solution from Europe. The Union must therefore shoulder its responsibilities. To sum up, this report does not promote equality between citizens of the Union and citizens of third countries. The European status of a long-term resident does not exist. We must not therefore sanction this type of political approach.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted for the ban on oestradiol-17 and all those substances which are so damaging to the human organism because they slow down, as has been noted, the growth and development of the human beings who come into contact with them. I know that Ministers for the budget of the Member States are not entirely opposed to continuing the use of these oestrogens which, as we know, accelerate the growth of animals, making them grow more quickly. But I wondered, why on earth was this the case? I now believe I have found an answer in the fact that perhaps they – our Ministers – hope that increasing the speed of growth of animals would also accelerate the speed of development of humans: humans would thus be elderly and retired for less time, resulting in savings for State budgets.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, it is indeed very important for our fellow citizens that we are able to offer them the best possible security measures in connection with all forms of transport – air, land and sea. Today, our debate concerns sea transport, and I will of course take the liberty of offering my sincere congratulations to the rapporteur. With regard to maritime transport security, passenger safety is of vital importance to us, but it is also important to take account of the transport of goods. A number of ships do indeed transport dangerous goods and, therefore, constitute perfect targets for terrorism. It has also been seen, even independently of any problem of terrorism, that simple natural disasters could have catastrophic consequences. Everything that contributes to better protection must, therefore, be welcomed and, once again, very important arrangements are being proposed to us, which I support: a national monitoring centre for security at sea and increased staff training, not forgetting the adequate equipping of ports – so many measures for which we have called many times in this House. That is what I think is important, even if I agree with my fellow MEPs in asking for these arrangements to be applied in a balanced and harmonious way, without compromising the actual activity of the ports. Clear definitions of each party’s responsibilities are also crucial, which is why I have to tackle the issue of the responsibility of the Member States. Are the latter prepared to make maritime security a major theme? Which are the countries that have so far transposed the directives voted on in this House? Which countries genuinely monitor the application of our European regulations? What point have we reached in preparing the European map of ports of refuge? Which states have progressed, and which are dragging their heels? I know that, where France is concerned, arrangements have finally been made along these lines. What is the position, and even the decision, of the Council on putting in place the European coastguards I have been requesting for a long time? If another disaster or accident were to occur, would Europe still be incriminated, by having helped make it possible, or will the Member States finally face up to their responsibilities? Commissioner, you have in fact completed a piece of work – and a terrific job, at that – in close partnership with the European Parliament. It is time to have this recognised and openly and publicly to tell the truth about blocking by individual nations, about delays concerning what is and is not applied and about what the Council of Ministers really wants.

Political group: PPE-DE
While I do not have a photographer present like Mr Vallvé, I have a serious point to make about violence at football matches. Could the Commissioner tell me the latest position on the question of organised racist violence at football matches? My own country, England, will shortly be playing a football match against a candidate country and risks being thrown out of the competition in question as a result of racism from its fans. While I know that this is the preserve of UEFA and not a matter directly for the Commission, I want to ask about the increase in racist violence at national and regional football matches, the fact that it is organised – often from the far right but not exclusively so – and whether the Commission would at least make a statement about this increase because, as the previous speaker said, sport is an expression of the culture and way of life of countries within the European Union. I am particularly worried about that expression from candidate countries where racism in football matches will be on the rise.

Political group: PSE
We Swedish Moderates agree with the demand that the Guantánamo prisoners be accorded a fair trial, and we have therefore voted in favour of the tabled report. We are not, however, of the opinion that the prisoners necessarily fulfil the conditions of the Geneva Convention that would allow them to be considered as prisoners of war. It is therefore incorrect for the report to invoke the Geneva Convention’s rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war as being synonymous with the rights of the Guantánamo prisoners.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to discuss the broad economic policy guidelines of the Member States and the European Union, and I would therefore like to start by making one thing very clear. I reject any coordination of Member States' economic policies by the European Union. The Member States must continue to be responsible for coordination. The method whereby, in all areas where the European Union has no competence, conditions are stipulated in the framework of open coordination and guidelines, is fundamentally wrong and moves Europe in the wrong direction. The responsibility for economic policy in Europe must remain with the individual Member States. What we need in Europe is competition between locations, which can be stimulated by the Member States' different economic policies and which in turn strengthens Europe as a location for business and investment and fosters positive development in this area. In my view, economic policy coordination can take place, at best, where the bases for competition are strengthened and also, of course, wherever this common coordination aims to guarantee currency stability. It follows from this – if we emphasise the Member States' responsibility in this area – that the Member States also have a specific responsibility for taking the action now required. To put it another way, the economic problems which we currently face in Europe's economy are largely the economic problems of large Member States, namely France, Italy and Germany. What we must do is clearly underline that these are not cyclical problems but structural problems. The key question for these countries is this: will they manage to summon the strength to undertake reforms? These future reforms cannot simply mean tinkering with the system. No, the key question is this: will they summon the strength to overhaul the systems per se in these countries? When I say ‘overhaul the systems’, I mean the areas which exacerbate the structural problems. I mean the high labour costs, the high taxes, the costly healthcare systems, the inflexible labour markets, the obstructive trade unions, and the soaring costs of pensions. These are the areas where there are structural problems, and these are the areas which must be tackled. I believe that by undertaking structural reforms in the major areas of social spending as well as in the pensions sector, we will also remove the budget risks which in turn have an impact on the debt situation in the various countries. This is a crucial point, also in the context of the Stability and Growth Pact. What we need in these countries is a common-sense majority to ensure that the Stability and Growth Pact is not undermined even more than it is at present.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I much regret that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy did not deliver an opinion on this subject. Our coordinators were led to believe that there would be insufficient time to prepare an opinion before the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy finalised its report. In fact, this process took quite a lot longer than originally planned and there would have been sufficient time for the Committee on Industry to have given an opinion. An opinion from that committee ought to have been regarded as essential – in fact it is arguable that the Industry Committee should have been the committee responsible for this report. This proposal will have a substantial impact on the European Union's biotechnology industry, on the EU's research programme and, in particular, on the priorities of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research. It also impacts on our trade in GMOs and in genetically modified research material with both developed and less-developed countries. The Commission proposal adds undesirable restrictive requirements beyond the internationally agreed Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, but the Environment Committee's suggested amendments go drastically further. It is essential that in our vote today we radically change the direction of this report. I am only sorry that, coming late to this matter as I did, there was insufficient time to introduce all the changes and separate votes I would have liked. Why is it such a problem? These additional restrictions and bureaucratic requirements will only discourage investment in life science research in Europe, and further encourage the investment in research to transfer to other areas with more favourable legislation outside Europe. Our scientists will go the same way as the research investment. Have the Commissioner and the rapporteur any concept of the damage this is likely to do? Did they give any consideration to the ambition expressed at Lisbon for Europe to be the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world? This proposal does not restrict imports into the EU of GMOs for contained research, but exports of public and private GM research material to third countries will be subject to yet further and disproportionate regulation. This proposal runs diametrically contrary to the EU's life science and biotechnology action plan. Was there any coordination or consultation with the Commissioner for Research and the Council of Ministers for Research? It is quite appropriate that the Commission should propose, and Parliament and the Council approve, the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, but we should go no further. If we do, we will jeopardise our life science base for the future, our scientific community, the whole Lisbon strategy and Europe's future as a dynamic knowledge-based economic power in the world. I call on Parliament to vote overwhelmingly against Mr Sjöstedt's report in all its critical aspects and, in particular, to support Amendments 50 and 51, which will at least mitigate the extent of the damage this proposal and report are likely to cause.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to take a rather personal line in this debate, because I believe that, whatever we say in this House, it may be perceived as offensive on all sides. We can make speeches here in the European Parliament that are best suited to satisfying our own electorates at home in Great Britain or France or, as in my own case, in Sweden. As the European Union and as the European Parliament, what contribution are we prepared to make to the Middle East issue, to a peaceful future there and to coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians? Two and a half years ago, I visited Nicosia and saw how that city was divided. As a 25 year-old, I travelled to Belfast and saw how that city too is divided, with, in more recent times, barricades and barriers now having been built to separate Unionists and Republicans, the two population groups. In Ceuta, which is situated in North Africa but belongs to Spain, there is barbed wire to separate this Spanish city of Ceuta from Morocco. The United States has built a barrier between itself and Mexico. An electric fence is almost complete between Zimbabwe and Botswana. Am I saying this in order in some way to excuse what is happening in the Middle East? No, not at all but, rather, to show that similar situations exist in many other places. In the year 2000 and with UN approval, Israel constructed a security fence between itself and Lebanon, involving electronic and other surveillance using sensors. This was applauded by the European Union and Russia and seen as a clever way for Israel unilaterally to withdraw its troops from Lebanese land in the year 2000. I would hope and believe that the wall and the barrier that have been built are interim solutions or measures. I would hope and believe that these are not permanent fixtures, and I would hope and believe that it will be possible for the peace talks to begin again. I wish to think well of both sides. The fact that the Israeli public pressed for the construction of this wall has to do, of course, with the large number of suicide attacks suffered by the Israeli public. One hundred and twenty suicide bombers have caused almost 900 deaths and getting on for 6 000 injured Israelis. As good Europeans, and as good Swedes, let us try to see this issue from both sides. Let us hope that we achieve a peaceful solution in the Middle East.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to begin by agreeing with Mrs Jackson that we are sinking, perhaps not as fast as the Titanic, but I understand this building is built on very soft ground. It may happen long after we have left, but I am sure it will eventually sink into the mire it was built upon. It has already flooded on the ground floor during construction. I expect that will happen again before too long. Getting back to the matter at hand, Mrs Jackson has essentially asked all the right questions in the right order. This proposal was supported unanimously in committee because we believe something has to be done, and done quickly, to meet consumer demands for labelling and to meet consumers' justified concerns about knowing what they are eating. The consumer has a right to know. The Commission has made a brave attempt to put something on paper, limited in scope though it is, to help the consumer. I will support that. But how practical is it? Is it going to work? The 1% limit on any ingredient – which I and others have been informed is already being exceeded by supermarkets etc. in terms of their requirements for food – is also a limit which I am told can quite easily be met by anyone wishing to avoid having to label foods containing GMs, because of adventitious contamination, whatever that means. It therefore seems to me that an early review is going to be extremely necessary. The net result of this regulation will be, when we bring it in, that the vast majority of food in the supermarket will be exactly as it is now – unlabelled – because the vast majority of food may contain a small amount of GM, below the limit. That will be what happens. We are making a brave attempt here. The Commission is making a brave attempt here. I would like it to clarify exactly what the scope of its proposal is. I am told that at the moment it only applies to those products derived from soya and maize. I would like the Commission to tell me just how practical it thinks its measures are going to be and how quickly it will be able to change them if they do not work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, more and more often in present-day society we are seeing situations where legislators are expected to enact laws very quickly and effectively. It would seem that these demands being made with regard to financial services are quite justified. This means we really have to evolve a modern legislative process, as Mr von Wogau mentioned. Unfortunately, a modern legislative process often seems to mean that it is the European Parliament that is expected to give up some of the legislative powers it enjoys by virtue of the Treaty. The problem with the Lamfalussy package is that the European Parliament cannot be completely certain it would not, in fact, be surrendering the legislative power it has on behalf of the citizens of the EU to the Council, on the one hand, and the Commission, on the other. In this regard, the European Parliament must ensure that these parliamentary supervisory powers are brought into closer focus. As President of this institution, you will surely seize on the proposal that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has put forward: whenever the European Parliament suspects that the Commission is using more than its fair share of powers of implementation, you could negotiate an ad hoc scrutiny mechanism to prevent Parliament’s legislative powers from being watered down. We all know that Parliament’s legislative power is not an end in itself: we really try to ensure, on behalf of the public, that decisions are taken openly and democratically, and that all views worthy of attention are taken into consideration during the process. It is also perfectly clear that the EC Treaty is no longer relevant to modern times in this respect. The Commission’s commitment to amending Article 202 of the Treaty in the very near future, which would restore Parliament’s legislative and supervisory powers, is to be welcomed with open arms. It should also be emphasised that the European Union needs a hierarchy of legal acts, with legislative powers and powers of implementation being defined very clearly. At present we are in a grey area with this Lamfalussy package, the direct result of level 2 decision-making.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, at yesterday’s meeting of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, we did indeed hear Mr Haavisto who prepared his report on the results of the group of experts. On the other hand, although he spoke about depleted uranium, he made absolutely no mention of the statement made by NATO on 18 January, in which it was admitted that, in addition to depleted uranium, plutonium had also been used. Are you planning to undertake plutonium tests in the region and do you intend to make European Union funds available in order to carry out decontamination work?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I tabled this amendment, along with 37 colleagues from the European People’s Party, because I was appalled at the way the media had exploited the explanatory statement which, as everyone should know but obviously does not, is the responsibility of the rapporteur and in no way commits the House. I was struck by the contradiction in tone between the explanatory statement and the content of the resolution. They are radically different. That is why I tabled this amendment. Having said that, I think you are right, Madam President, to declare it admissible because the vote this amendment involves is not a vote for or against the explanatory statement, but is simply intended to highlight the distance between that explanatory statement and the resolution. After the explanations given by both Mrs Stauner and Mrs Theato, who has stated publicly in the clearest possible way that the explanatory statement is only the responsibility of the rapporteur and in no way commits the House, I consider the amendment no longer necessary, and that is why I am withdrawing it.

Political group: PPE-DE