GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, our group voted against this report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. In its current form, this report fails to challenge the principles of the neo-liberal credo, which unfortunately are at the heart of many Community policies. Yesterday, the dock workers brought this home to us forcefully in this very city and with every justification. The report does not query the validity of the stability and growth programmes to any significant extent. It is worth considering the meaning of the terms ‘growth’ and ‘stability’. By definition, things that are ‘stable’ do not grow. Growth means movement; stability means the opposite. Certainly, the reality is dialectical in nature. On the other hand, this use of words could be construed as an attempt to resolve a contradiction. The report appears to reject any initiative to make the stability and growth criteria more flexible, and particularly the famous 3% criterion. Given the present economic difficulties, some Member States, and not just the smallest among them, are finding it increasingly difficult to comply with the 3% rule. Will this remedy kill the patient? We should note that experts from both the European Union and Member States gave overly optimistic predictions of growth. We hoped that the American economy would show signs of recovery, and that the European economy would follow suit. This has not happened, however. The policies pursued by Member States and the European Union were therefore based on inaccurate data. In this respect, the rigidity of the criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact seems to run counter to the fundamentals of good governance. People better qualified than I on this subject have spoken strongly on the matter. We should envisage policies of Keynesian cyclic recovery. We should also consider policies aimed at achieving long-term improvement of the bases of the economy. These include, for example, energy efficiency and the provision of training. I would like to add that good governance implies reliable economic data, meaning the State must benefit from the Rule of Law. The fact that the Basque newspaper Egunkaria has been banned for six months makes one wonder whether the Basque country is still within a country where the Rule of Law prevails.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the employment problem is not only an issue for the national States, but also for Europe. Recognising this does not mean removing the Member States' competences, but asserting that with a broader and more cohesive view of the employment issue we can work with greater efficiency to address one of the most important matters of our time. We therefore need an institutional balance split between the Union’s objectives and guidelines and the Member States’ free choices. The Committee is a first step in this direction, but it is not enough. As regards the guidelines, I would like to talk specifically about the part which concerns the transition from school to work. This aim is not pursued only by the albeit commendable proposals contained in Guidelines 7 and 8. Certainly, it is good that schools are recognised as having a fundamental role in combating unemployment, but there is no reference to the need for schools to operate in the field of planning within Europe as a whole, encompassing the participation of social partners, local organisations and the business world. Therefore, the Commission needs to refer to this aspect and undertake to promote support programmes which will encourage this perspective.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, if I have understood correctly, we are at present establishing our Agenda. Our Rules of Procedure do not admit any points of order at this juncture. According to the Rules of Procedure, we are allowed procedural motions pursuant to Rule 141 and points of order with reference to the Rules of Procedure pursuant to Rule 142, but not, in any manner of speaking, points of order, especially not to make the kind of representations we have just heard. Apparently, just anyone can stand up and say whatever they want when the Agenda comes up. When oh when, Madam President, are you going to apply the Rules of Procedure and nothing but the Rules of Procedure?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a legislative framework on environmental liability is necessary because it is right that the polluter should pay. However, the legislation must be well-balanced and take into consideration the expressed requirements of European industry. The position adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which is summarised in Mr Manders’ report – and I would like to thank Mr Manders for this important document – is an acceptable compromise, although it does involve some sacrifices. Some of the amendments being tabled now are particularly dangerous, in that they would make it impossible for operators to quantify insurance coverage. The definition of environmental damage is central to the structure of the directive, as are the definitions of biodiversity and biodiversity damage. As I see it, Amendments Nos 23, 84 and 98 are unacceptable: if an incident does not have harmful effects, then it is risk, not damage we should be talking about. Amendment No 95 is not acceptable either, in that it disregards the polluter pays principle. Indeed, the concept of liability is independent of the relationship of indefeasible right to use a site. The definition of GMO soil contamination is inappropriate in that it is part of a general definition which does not list all the sources of contamination. There needs to be a reference to proportional liability, not joint and several liability, which would create a system based on mistrust. Prevention can and must continue to be the highest priority in activities which might affect the environment. Lastly, the financial guarantees: in order to allow the insurance market to consolidate, we need to ensure maximum flexibility even after the first five years of application of the new legislation. I therefore urge the Members to support the Committee on Legal Affairs’ compromise, which is a clear, powerful signal furthering environmental protection but does not penalise European industry.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Radwan report has addressed honestly many of the issues which relate to the functioning of the Central Bank, ranging from prudential banking supervision and the cost of international money transfers on the one hand, to convergence requirements for applicant countries and the role of this Parliament in providing the framework for the accountability of the ECB on the other. I welcome the calls for greater transparency which I consider is the bank's best defence against calls to amend the Treaty to reduce its operational independence, and Mr Duisenberg has undertaken to publish the econometric models, for which he should be congratulated. I would also urge publishing the minutes and the voting patterns of the Governing Council, as winning the trust and the confidence of the markets is vital, especially for such a young institution. The report welcomes the fact the ECB does not interpret its responsibility for stability policy one-sidedly, but that, in addition to inflation, it also monitors deflationary tendencies. This is also important. We all value economic and price stability, and the new paradigm in the United States gives us hope that such stability, including a balanced budget over the economic cycle, is consistent with growth and the steady reduction in unemployment. The report, however, does not examine the markets' lack of confidence in the euro and the huge capital outflows from Europe over the past year. I believe this is due to the lack of faith in the core Euroland countries' ability to govern and deliver fundamental structural reforms under their current governments, which Otmar Issing, the bank's chief economist, has referred to as the serious structural rigidities in Europe's labour markets and pensions systems. Lastly, as a British member, I do not think it is fair that candidate countries should be subject to any stricter application of the Maastricht convergence criteria for joining EMU than the existing members and, as an out-country member, I urge the Commission to consider the flexible European model that we British Conservatives have adopted, allowing these countries to opt out of EMU in future if they so wish after joining.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, this mother, Amina Lawal, has been sentenced to death, to die by stoning, brutally, for having had sexual relations after being divorced, something very common which is done by millions of people, men and women, on all five continents, regardless of their beliefs, Muslims, Catholics, protestants and any other. 'Why Amina and not me?', the whole world asks in the face of this Islamic hypocrisy. Mr President, Commissioner, the current application of the sharia in the states of the north of Nigeria did not exist before. It is simply a fundamentalist interpretation. The harm it would do to the life of Amina is irreversible. Later, power relationships will change, there will be other tribunals, Islamic ones or American ones, which establish different criteria, but Amina’s right to life will be irreversibly violated. Paragraph 11 reiterates that the European Parliament wants to see consideration of the victims of fundamentalist persecutions being given the right to asylum, particularly in cases of sentences to death by stoning. Mr President, Commissioner, we must not forget that these sentences to death by stoning are also being carried out in Iran. And a top official close to Khatami even had the nerve to praise them. Commissioner, we want to strengthen links with Iran, but are these stonings compatible with our coherence on foreign and security policy and the defence of human rights? Commissioner, I would ask you also to take account of the stonings in Iran.

Political group: PSE
Ladies and gentlemen, our group backs the report by Mr Kirkhope and certainly the words he has spoken this evening. I believe that the joint investigation teams are a positive step in the fight against all kinds of organised crime. First of all, in connection with the Turco report, which specifically deals with the two aspects of Europol’s scope, extending the mandate appears to be a rather pointless exercise if Europol is unable to carry out the mandate properly. After all, Europol’s usefulness has so far proved very limited in practice. Moreover, Europol does indeed work with police and court information but is not involved in any way in the internal security service in practice. This creates an imbalance and repressive action after the events without sufficient preventive action. Secondly, with regard to the databases, the call for a decentralised system is justified on account of manageability. It would therefore be a big step forward if every Member State were to develop such a database. These initiatives are therefore to be welcomed, but the same cracks seem to be appearing again. On the one hand, we are relying too heavily on the benevolence, or lack thereof, of the Member States, while on the other hand, there appears to be an evident lack of confidence in democracy, notably parliamentary supervision of this highly important area of policy. If we are truly concerned about the protection of civil rights and the maintenance of democracy, we must, without delay, build an adequate system based on criminal law that can meet the challenges we are now facing, and invest in a powerful preventive policy. Internal security services, in particular, have an important role to play here. The cooperation between the internal security services and the judicial services, in other words, between preventive and repressive action, must be better coordinated as a matter of urgency, with the emphasis placed firmly on the prevention of serious crimes.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, as a Basque MEP, I would like to express my rejection and condemnation of the terrorism and violence of ETA. I would also like to express my condolences to the family of Ramón García and to all the families of victims of terrorism and violence. On behalf of the Basque Nationalist Party, I would also like to say that our overwhelming priority is the ethical principles of human rights and, above all, the right to life. You have presented us with the anti-terrorist agreement drafted by Spain’s Popular Party and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party. I must tell you that this agreement does not offer anything new and that it contains only repressive measures, police measures and impositions. It does not offer any valid proposal to resolve the political conflict in the Basque Country. It is now ten years since the Basque parliament approved the right to self-determination but, nevertheless, the Spanish Government has deliberately ignored this free democratic decision adopted in the Basque Country. In the Basque Country we need less fascism from ETA and less centralism and imposition from the state; we need more dialogue, more democracy and more respect for the democratic decisions of the Basque parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I was not intending to take the floor, but having heard many of the Dutch Members give their opinion on the problem of euthanasia, I should like to make a brief point as, at the Conference of Presidents, I spoke on behalf of my group to oppose the debate. This is not because I am against a debate on euthanasia – and my group is certainly not opposed to a debate on this – but we did not believe that it was a good idea to hold such a debate under the urgent procedure, and to rush through it, not to mention the risk of interfering in a national debate. We are in favour of a debate, but a debate that is well-organised and which gives us the opportunity to hear from a wide range of moral authorities as well as experts, since we believe that this is a crucial ethical debate. I also believe that the debate is taking place in other European Union Member States as well as in the Netherlands. It takes a great deal of time and it has not yet been resolved, following sometimes several months of discussions. In conclusion, we believe that if such a debate is to be held in Parliament, it must be organised in a serious and efficient manner.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have been approached by several colleagues who are concerned at the level of lobbying outside the entrance to Parliament. I would like to respectfully request colleagues and those who are lobbying for the signing of the register to allow Members the leeway and the freedom to sign these resolutions without having to go through 'a wall of fire' to get into the Chamber. I am sorry to have to raise this issue, but it is becoming a bit of a problem for us, and I notice that quite a number of colleagues are concerned about it. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the world’s largest common legal area is on the way to becoming a reality. It must be founded upon common values and have broad political support. The proposal to set up an initial provisional Eurojust unit is largely to be welcomed. In this way, the Council has taken a first step towards institutionalising the process of judicial cooperation, something which the Group of the European People’s Party and has been demanding for a long time. It is essential, if the rule of law is to be upheld, for judicial cooperation in criminal matters to be developed in line with the competences of Europol. By strengthening the fight against serious organised crime, Eurojust is therefore a logical step in the efforts to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice. The provisional unit’s main tasks ought to be that of ensuring better coordination between the national prosecution authorities and that of supporting criminal investigations in cases involving organised crime. In view of the proposed unit’s remit, there must be close and clearly regulated cooperation with Europol in order to avoid duplication of effort and conflicts over the respective responsibilities of those involved. Setting up the provisional unit is only a first step. The rapporteur appreciates that setting up the second stage Eurojust ought to be that much easier in the light of the experience gained, which is a view I share. Moving subsequently towards setting up a European public prosecution authority is another question to discuss. I see the role of a future European public prosecutor as being precisely and solely that of combating fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests. In view of the subsidiarity principle, I am therefore opposed to a common catalogue of criminal law and to the EU as a common judicial body in all criminal law – if anyone should happen to see any such development as being of topical relevance right now. What Parliament has to adopt a position on today is vigorous judicial cooperation for the purpose of combating serious organised crime. This is a positive development, and it is therefore gratifying that there should be so much support for it in Parliament. I am particularly pleased about the initiative to strengthen the protection of personal data. I would congratulate Mrs Gebhardt on a good piece of work. I want to conclude by pointing out something I think we ought not to forget. Without a certain degree of cooperation, it is simply not possible for us to uphold a law-governed society in an EU with freedom of movement. If we wish to see crime combated more efficiently, then we must also strengthen the protection of human rights, something which must be founded upon our common legal principles.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to thank the Commissioner for his explanation, but there is a Dutch proverb that says: een ezel stoot zich in gemeen geen tweemaal aan dezelfde steen – wherever an ass falls, there he will never fall again, or, in other words, ‘once bitten, twice shy’. It is certainly not my intention to draw a comparison between our Commissioner and that animal, but it is absolutely true that the Commission is often late in responding to certain epidemics of animal diseases. We saw this in the case of FMD and we are witnessing it again now. The Commissioner visited Thailand in early January and stated there, during his visit, that he was pleased about how the problem was being dealt with and that there was certainly no risk of avian influenza. Meanwhile, one month on, we are in the middle of a worldwide crisis. We in the CDA delegation in this House demand from the Commissioner that the line of approach similar to the one we have in the Netherlands, the so-called Veerman approach, should be extended Europe-wide: a ban on the imports of all poultry, so including cooked meat, from South-East Asia, a ban on the imports of ornamental birds, tighter control on flights from Asia and disinfectant mats on all international airports with direct or indirect connections to Asia. That is at the moment the only way of warding off this crisis. In addition, I should like the Commissioner to shed light on the rumour that FMD has broken out in 26 towns in Vietnam. We can now fight the problem in good time and, if that is the case, we can ensure that, this time round, adequate measures are taken and we should not wait until the disaster has spread in South-East Asia again before we take action. We are in favour of supporting the Asian countries in the fight against avian influenza, but we in Europe should not be injecting funds into this while a number of countries ride roughshod over the quarantine measures. Finally, the Commission should start a worldwide debate on the fight against animal diseases. Similarly, preventive vaccination should gradually become a subject of discussion worldwide, from the point of view of both public and animal health.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against the resolution for the following reasons: 1. The resolution says nothing about the need to give priority to sustainable development and the integration of environmental issues into all the policy areas of the Community. 2. The resolution does not repudiate militarisation of the EU and does not acknowledge that every military operation must have a UN mandate. 3. Nor does the resolution make it clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights must not come into conflict with other international conventions or with the International Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. 4. The resolution does not emphasise that enlargement must be given absolute priority. - Security and defence policy (B5-0505/2000)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in my opinion, the supplementary question by Mr Purvis was most pertinent, since recently the need for increased economic cooperation amongst the EMU countries has been justified by precisely this weakening of the value of the euro in relation to the US dollar. The reason for the dollar becoming stronger in comparison to the euro is simply that the national economy of the USA is stronger than that of the euro countries. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs have recently been created in the USA, while the number of jobs in Europe has been cut. I would like to ask the Commissioner firstly, whether the Commission admits that the weakening of the euro that has been much thrashed out in public, is a consequence of the infrastructural problems and lack of dynamism of the EU economy, particularly in relation to the USA, and whether he really believes that the kind of Keynesian action as proposed by Mrs Frahm would be the cure for this weakening of the euro, and whether he believes that the Commission will achieve better results in this matter, when the national governments of France and Germany have actually proceeded in the totally opposite direction, and their actions have weakened even further the competitiveness of the euro area. As an example, I refer here to the decisions made by the French Government on working hours.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, today is the first time that Members of Parliament from the new EU Member States have been able to put their opinions forward. It is a pity that these opinions are being delivered in such a private environment. Nevertheless, it is of course an honour for me to appear before the European Parliament. I come from Slovakia, which, just like the other new EU Member States, has undergone huge changes in the last 15 years, changes which often took decades in the advanced democracies. These changes have been very painful and have brought with them great inequalities and social injustice. We are the living proof that, if the social aspects of the market economy are ignored, along with the effects of experimental reforms on the population, and if the invisible hand of the market is continually overemphasised, it is one hundred per cent certain that the result will be enormous differences in standards of living and enormous differences between regions. I believe that we have had enough fireworks and receptions celebrating the enlargement of the European Union. It must be borne in mind that the Union now includes countries where average income is about EUR 160 and average earnings are about EUR 360 a month. Full compliance with the European economic and social model may act as an emergency brake for some Member States. We may, of course, have great reservations about this model, but socially fairer and more forward-looking models are very difficult, if not impossible, to devise. We wish to use our experiences from the last 15 years to make as constructive a contribution as possible to the implementation of this model. We do not wish to be the part of Europe which is only attractive because of its low labour costs and weak social protection. The introduction of restrictions on the free movement of workers has not been the best of contributions to the European economic and social model. It is essential to express the conviction that further such ‘contributions’ will not occur and that equality and solidarity will not be restricted to glossy brochures about the European Union, but will be real European values. (Applause)

Political group: PSE