GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I was a member of the delegation from our Group which visited Turkey. I do not want to recount my experiences at length, I just want to tell you what my impression was. It was one of disappointment. I am extremely disappointed that four months after obtaining candidate status, nothing serious has yet been done to move towards compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, especially the political criteria. Commissioner, you mentioned the interministerial committee. It is true that numerous structures are being set up. I have been aware of this in Turkey since 1995. If they are obliged to comply with something, they start by setting up committees and commissions, interministerial, extraministerial, every sort of committee under the sun. The structures are superb, we can all agree on that. Except that they do nothing. For example, it would have been very easy without any committees, without any commissions, to abolish Article 312 of the Criminal Code; all it needed was a vote in the Turkish Grand National Assembly and that would have freed a whole series of intellectuals, authors, journalists and the very same Akin Birdal from jail. That is how easy it is to take the first steps. The Turks tell us they need time, they need a great deal of time, because this reform can only be achieved one step at a time. I warned you about that. I told you that numerous fellow Members here in this very House, in the European Parliament, were prepared to allow as much time as they needed, 200 years, 400 years, even more. But I belong to a Group which enthusiastically helped Turkey to achieve candidate status, not just so that Turkey could be a candidate but to give Turkey a real chance to become a member and start negotiations. Which is why we want to insist and want to press for Turkey to be helped on its way with a road map and a specific timetable and, of course the accession partnership which the Commissioner referred to earlier, and not just to remain a candidate. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, although it was distressing to hear in The Hague of the failure of the signatories to the agreement on global warming to implement the Kyoto Protocol, we must nevertheless welcome the healthy political reactions condemning the shameful provocation by President Bush who, by trying to blow the commitments of the fight against greenhouse gas emissions out of the water, is simply rewarding the American oil lobby which financed his electoral campaign. Commissioner, we must save the Kyoto Protocol. The survival of the planet is at stake. That is why we must set an example. With or without the United States, the European Union must sign the Kyoto Protocol. We must show and we must prove to the whole world that, as one of the parties responsible for currently polluting the planet, we are genuinely committed, in practical terms too, to combating greenhouse gas emissions. Public opinion supports us in this. We must convince the American public that its President is making an historic mistake.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, what we have just seen is an attempt to wreck the Thursday sitting just as Friday's sitting as been done away with, partly by undermining these topical and urgent debates. However, I would like to say that the subject of Cambodia very much demonstrates the importance of our topical and urgent debates. As Mr Tannock has quite rightly said, the genocide which took place in Cambodia was often hushed up during the 1980s. No one cared about Cambodia. It was this House which, following its first direct election in 1979, was the first to give repressed peoples a moral voice, although it had virtually no powers at that time. And this House took a very special interest in the fate of the people of Cambodia. I recall that in the 1980s our colleague Otto von Habsburg, who I was working with at the time, regularly got the subject of Cambodia onto the agenda. And if the Cambodians wanted to communicate with the peoples of Europe, they did it through the European Parliament's debates on topical and urgent subjects of major importance, here in Strasbourg. A politician who recently died, Son San, a Democrat who trod the difficult path between the Khmer Rouge on the one hand and the pro-Vietnamese puppet regime on the other, gradually pushed ahead the re-establishment of a democratic Cambodia, chiefly with the help of the European Union and of the European Parliament. Today we have an opportunity to build on this, and I am very pleased that the horrifying genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge will now be properly punished. But it is also very positive – and I would like to say that Mrs Iivari is quite right here – that we as the European Union have a chance to actively support democracy, the rule of law and plurality in modern Cambodia. However, this example should make us aware that it is not always a question of absolute power or authority. This House, thank goodness, now has greater powers as regards external policy than it had 20 years ago. It is a question of giving those who are deprived of their rights a moral voice and that is one of the primary duties of this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, congratulations on a particularly focused summit as regards: the clarity of the objectives; the analysis of the tasks needed to meet those objectives; and the built-in progress-chasing system. There was particular emphasis at this summit on the European area of research and innovation, following the excellent communication from Commissioner Busquin. This is a domain of severe under-achievement in the European Union. We need deeper knowledge in science and technology. We have grasped the need to rectify our lack – by means of patent protection, mapping of areas of excellence, tax incentives for research and development, an electronic network for scientists and enhanced mobility for our researchers. The sixth framework programme will be another tool. As well as deeper knowledge, we need wider knowledge. We need people who have been disenfranchised in the areas of science and technology – women, older people and particularly those suffering disadvantage – to be on board in the quest for this wider knowledge. We need to use the knowledge in better ways. Of course, we need new products and we need new processes and we need new ideas about how our society should be run. We also need new sustainable technologies. The European Socialists are fully behind the leap forward which is possible given the cogent analysis that took place at the Lisbon Summit.

Political group: PSE
Since Parliament is today being visited by a high-level delegation from the Russian Federation Duma, I should like – and not just on my own behalf, I believe – to express our indignation and outrage at the Russian Government’s policy in Chechnya. (Applause) ***

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as a member of the Group, but also as a Member of this Parliament for Galicia, I propose to use this intervention to enlarge upon two issues. I shall, of course, be brief. Firstly, fishery production and the conservation of marine life and resources are two sides of the same coin. Shipowners and fishermen from the countries most active in fishing are more concerned than anyone about respecting their means of living, for without it, the future of this sector cannot be guaranteed. Secondly, it is true that a policy of preserving the marine environment must be practised both in Community seas and in international waters or those belonging to third countries. This particularly applies, however, to our own coastal waters. Given this context, I would like to tell you about something that happened a few days ago. I discovered that the EU is using ERDF resources to finance the construction of a wharf in Vilagarcia, in Galicia, for storing chemical and hydrocarbon products, on a site which will only employ three workers. This contravenes the EC environmental impact directive in relation to an estuary such as Arousa, where 26 000 people earn a living from the seafood industry.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We have chosen to vote in favour of the report on the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community. The report as a whole is sound. We do not, however, agree with certain of the points, to the effect that there must be greater wage flexibility and that it would be good to reduce the overall tax rates in the EU. Nor do we support the view that the Commission and the other institutions of the EU must be given further executive influence over the Lisbon process and economic policy. We are also opposed to the appointment of a high representative of the euro area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to add my voice to those who earlier paid their respects to the memory of President Pflimlin. One of his lasting legacies is an understanding of the continuing need of the strength of the three political institutions of the EU and for mutual respect between them. It is perhaps inevitable as we are discussing the ending of the Portuguese Presidency that, with the recent speeches in Berlin, the memory is going to focus more on the second half of the IGC than the first, but I would like at this stage to record my thanks to the Portuguese Presidency for their assiduousness in consulting the Parliament both here in the plenary and in the Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Berlin speeches by Foreign Minister Fischer, visionary and controversial, by President Chirac, controversial but not visionary, and by Prime Minister Blair, neither visionary nor controversial, which threaten to overshadow the memory of the Portuguese Presidency, leave certain questions in the mind which the Portuguese Presidency can still help us with. Firstly I understand that Prime Minister Jospin has said that he would rather see no agreement in December in Nice than an unsatisfactory institutional reform. Could the Portuguese Presidency confirm that sufficient work has been done to ensure that agreement can be reached in December? Secondly, on enlargement, could he confirm that there is still the political will in the Council so that candidate countries, this House and the public of Europe can expect to hear target dates announced for the first wave of accession? This is something that the Commission and many in this House would like to see. My last question on close cooperation would include Commissioner Patten, if he is able to demonstrate that he has not imposed a vow of silence. Is it the case that the Council still attaches importance to the democratic interplay between the three institutions and that closer cooperation will not inevitably mean greater decision making by one institution, by the Council, to the detriment of Parliament and Commission and, by implication, the people of Europe?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, very briefly and in support of Mr Seguro, I would like to say that the awarding of the Sakharov Prize by this Parliament to Mr Xanana Gusmão does honour to this Parliament. I believe that we must be proud that people such as Xanana Gusmão exist. He is a man who has suffered, and has done so responsibly, and who we hope in the coming months and years will be able to lead his country along the road to peace and democracy. And I hope that the European institutions will cooperate with a new free population of East Timor with regard to its economic and social development within a framework of democracy. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are aware of the progress that has been made in recent years with regard to the situation of women, particularly the legislative progress, but there are still situations of real inequality in everyday life. The low level of representation of women in political and economic spheres and gender-related violence are two clear signs that structural discrimination against women is continuing. This programme will undoubtedly help to ensure that the concerns, needs and aspirations of women are taken into account in all policies. The current situation requires that positive action measures in favour of women be implemented. The objectives that the programme sets out in five specific areas will help to ensure that all the action taken will be associated with at least one of those areas. Participation in economic life, which women should enjoy under equal conditions to men, employment, which is the basis for all equality and integration, and achieving the 60% target proposed at the Lisbon Summit, would also solve other problems. The inclusion of this objective in all Community programmes, within the framework of the Structural Funds, should be effected in accordance with Community legislation. Equality in participation and representation, balance in the decision-making process, greater participation in political life, whatever the process adopted, in order to achieve an increase in the participation of women, until we reach the 40% figure proposed by the Commission. Equal access and full enjoyment of social rights for women and men, which would mean ensuring that the legislation is applied in the social sphere in terms of maternity leave, maternity protection, working time, employment contracts, etc. Equality between women and men in civil life, allowing women to fully enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms. We especially need to guard against and eradicate trafficking in women and domestic violence. We need to encourage a change in the roles and stereotypes associated with gender, which will also help to solve some of the other problems above. In relation to this objective we will support the organisation of awareness campaigns and a European Equality Week in cooperation with the Member States, as the Commission proposes. We think that it is very useful to create a web site, not only due to the increasing use of computerised media, but because this will help women to familiarise themselves more and more with this new world from which they must not be excluded. Something that we think is of particular importance is the evaluation of the programme ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
As the report states, compliance with the common fisheries policy depends to a large extent on the participation of the fishermen and their associations in the decision-making process. It is, therefore, crucial that progress is made on co-determination. It is also significant that the report emphasises the fact that responsibility for monitoring the implementation of Community legislation lies primarily with the Member States and must continue to do so, albeit with greater cooperation and supervision and not involving total centralisation. The report is, nevertheless, quite critical of Member States’ failure to comply with the notification of catches, infringements and other information relating to the CFP. Portugal seems to be the only Member State to have complied with all decisions, both with regard to infringements of the regulations and to the MAGPs. It is, consequently, a matter of considerable regret that the Committee, with its revised proposal, appears to be attempting to treat all countries in the same way, which would mean penalising Portugal for having fully complied with the rules.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office, among the points on the agenda for the Italian Presidency, this Parliament has naturally paid particular attention to the Intergovernmental Conference, which should approve the Convention’s draft. The Constitution will be an historic development recalling the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Parliament, however, expects a step forward on the majority vote and a common foreign policy, which it believes is the only alternative to American unilateralism and the most worthwhile basis for Euro-Atlantic understanding. I also hope there will be some thought about the fact that human values, which are clearly expressed in the clauses of the Constitution and are there to protect the European citizenry, have Christian roots. Christianity is no restriction to the secularity of politics. The Italian Presidency has the opportunity to incorporate the trans-European networks – which the Commission’s priority projects have marked out as an objective for strengthening European territorial cohesion – into a broader programme. We must, however, allocate more resources to the research and innovation policy, as you, Mr Berlusconi, have said and Mr Prodi has confirmed, since the competitiveness of the European economy depends especially on this investment. This Presidency should, finally, put into practice the initiative outlined at Thessaloniki for an immigration policy that finds a steady balance between legality and reception; that is, one that upholds the values we read of in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Lastly, to reinvigorate Europe’s Mediterranean policy, we must be aware that no initiative involving the southern Mediterranean countries can be successful unless it is based on a strong peace policy that guarantees the security of Israel but also a homeland for the Palestinians. I wish you success in your work!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was just about to say that, contrary to some speculation, I was not arrested at this point. We have received a number of tributes to my late friend, Mr Dankert. He used to chair a small committee of this Parliament, in which I sat, which had as its sole motivation the achievement of the rights of this Parliament to decide where it sits. I understand that Mr van Hulten and others are pursuing that work and I want to encourage them. We cannot be taken seriously until the Council allows us to decide where we sit and where our staff meets. (Loud applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against racism and xenophobia is not a new concern of our institutions. On numerous occasions, the debates in our Assembly have focused on combating racism. Today we have a European monitoring centre as well as Article 13 of the Treaty, which enshrines the power of the Union to take action to combat discrimination. The European countries also have national anti-racism legislation. In practice, however, racial discrimination has never before been such an acute problem. Let me cite in evidence the report produced by the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, which testifies to the upsurge in racism and xenophobia, including ‘Islamophobia’, a phenomenon reflected in the alarming rise of the extreme right. The Council’s proposal on combating racism and xenophobia, which we are examining here, is designed to strengthen and supplement the existing legal framework. It is highly regrettable, however, to discover once again that Community responsibility for defining and penalising racist and xenophobic crimes is to be based on the lowest common denominator. If there is no common definition of the recognised offences, how will it be possible to guarantee that the same efforts will be made to combat racism and xenophobia in each of the Member States? One might well ask whether the aim of this proposal is really to combat racism or whether it is merely a way of salving our consciences. This reluctance to take the bull by the horns is tantamount to offering racists the right to continue serving the ends of the extreme right or engaging in populism and rabble-rousing sophistry for electoral purposes and to do so with impunity. Let us not forget that the purpose of combating racism is not only to protect foreigners but also to defend the values of our democracies, human rights and fundamental freedoms, which form the bedrock on which we are building the European Union. Besides, why exclude the Member States from the implementation of this Decision when we know for a fact that institutional racism exists and that it must be combated with the utmost vigour? This institutional racism, which manifests itself in a whole host of social, economic, professional, cultural and political exclusion mechanisms, is based on ethnic or religious considerations or sometimes on a system of national preference, which is now giving way to European preference. If racism is to be combated more effectively on a day-to-day basis, it is not enough to adopt legislative acts. We are convinced that granting equal rights, including political rights, to all citizens of the Union, whatever their nationality, is the only way to combat every form of racism, because it establishes a balance of political power that is rooted in the exercise of citizenship. Unfortunately, the proposed framework decision does not go far enough in this direction. Nevertheless, we owe it to ourselves to support every initiative that puts human dignity at the heart of the process of building the Union, and combating racism is an integral part of that process.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, we in Parliament are rightly particularly attentive to areas where ethnic tensions lead to conflict and attempts to overthrow democracy and the rule of law. In both Fiji and the Solomon Islands democratic government and law and order have been undermined. In Fiji the aim must be to restore the legitimate government elected on the basis of the 1997 multi-racial constitution, which was approved by both ethnic groups – Indo-Fijians and indigenous Fijians. Violence against property and people must cease and the hostages released. The interim civilian administration installed in Fiji does not meet the constitutional or democratic tests. We therefore call on the Commission to begin with determination the procedures to suspend development cooperation with Fiji. The beleaguered inhabitants of Fiji are looking to the European Union, which they see as the beacon of democracy and racial equality, to come to their aid. We also warn the Solomon Islands that a suspension of aid may be needed there to restore democracy, peace and stability.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my Group would like to welcome the annual legislative programme. However, we have some concerns about the process. I came to this procedure as a relatively new Member of this House. It was with some incredulity that I found myself faced with these various draft resolutions from each of the groups, all of them very much resembling shopping lists of differing lengths and ingredients. Indeed, to carry the metaphor further and using the English usage, if we were going to make a meal from these it would be rather long and rather indigestible. I understand that it has been the normal tradition to obediently produce these lists. Now, I am not particularly radical or revolutionary, but it seemed to my colleagues that this process lacked something, especially at a time when we are trying to reconnect Europe with its citizens, when we want them to be clear about what we are doing here. There has been much talk about concentrating on core tasks and of achieving better quality of European legislation rather than more quantity. All this sits rather uneasily with endless lists. With this in mind, we produced a one-page resolution highlighting key areas. However, this has not reached the compromise resolution, so we wish now to put down a clear marker for the future about how this process should be conducted. We should like to suggest that, since this is a very important process and moment in our legislative cycle, and to enable the Commission and Parliament to approach it in a constructive way, the annual state of the Union address could be combined with a resolution from Parliament on key political priorities and then go to the committees for more detailed debate. This would get away from the shopping-list approach and give more political focus. It would allow Parliament to participate fully in the process, not just by swapping shopping lists with you. It is because we want to give more purpose and prominence to this procedure that the intends not to sign the current eight-page list – not because we object to the contents, but because we think this is in danger of becoming an annual ritual performance without substance and real meaning. What we would like to do is catch the imagination of Europe's citizens.

Political group: ELDR