GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, today the European Parliament is discussing two global questions: the liberalisation of world trade, and the realisation of an agreement on climate change, both of which issues are connected. They must both be seen as part of the greater whole. The current trend in all the Western societies of the European Union and throughout humanity is in irreconcilable conflict with the economics of nature. We speak of sustainable development with reference to the economics of nature, but the main drift of the action goes in the opposite direction. Despite the population policy, population growth continues at a considerable rate. Everywhere, including the most prosperous countries in the world, people are trying to raise their material standard of living, which is to say, they consume more. There are many who believe that the invisible hands at work in the markets and technological development will solve the problems of mankind. Market forces are a good servant, but a bad master. The new technology will help us to adapt our own economy to that of nature, but it also creates new problems and risks all the time. Both market forces and technological developments must be steered in a direction that will take sustainable development from the sphere of mere words to one of deeds. In the end, however, it will be a question of the values of life and policy. To check the advance of climate change and other changes to the environment that are harmful to human beings effectively, we need to be able to break the chain of materialism, with its supremacy of temporary values, which is harmful both to nature and humanity.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Health Council, serious acute respiratory syndrome is yet another reminder of the need for coordinated action in the public health sector. We cannot talk of prevention, control and timely intervention with communicable or other diseases unless we put the conditions in place for Community cooperation, especially today with enlargement and with citizens able to travel easily and quickly. I am delighted that all the honourable Members who spoke referred unanimously to this need in their speeches; this has never happened in the past. Just like environmental problems, communicable diseases know no frontiers. Epidemics such as this atypical pneumonia epidemic call for transparency and direct information, a surveillance system that operates efficiently and health systems that get beyond bureaucratic malfunctions and offer the best possible services in the public interest. The role of the World Health Organisation is fundamental, which is why cooperation between the WHO, the European Commission and the Member States has been effective. It is important to emphasise that the measures introduced at European Union level have restricted the spread of the disease and, most importantly, there have as yet been no fatalities in any Member State. As regards the Extraordinary Council held last week, I think it is important that the Council is pushing for the setting up of a special expert group on SARS to draw up joint programmes and advice on hygiene measures throughout Europe and provide information on measures taken so far and their results. It is also necessary to provide all manner of assistance to the affected areas. Exit points must be controlled in the same way as – if not more so than – entry points, using all administrative and scientific means. Allow me to express my concern about the adequate application of measures decided so far. It would be advisable for the Commission to exercise as much influence as it can in this direction. Finally, may I congratulate the Greek Presidency on the sensitivity and readiness it demonstrated in convening the Extraordinary Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my comment refers to the point of order I made yesterday, which has been wrongly recorded in the Minutes. The Minutes say that I protested about the recent change to the Criminal Code in Slovakia. In fact an amendment has been tabled in an attempt to change the code; it has not been changed already and I would be obliged if this could be corrected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, yesterday I made a request, on behalf of my Group and the , and with the express support in the Assembly of the Group, for an urgent debate and the approval of the interinstitutional agreement on OLAF, an agreement which was ratified during the last legislature, which was on the agenda for October and with regard to which my Group and, I believe, the other groups have tried to dispel the legitimate doubts which some of our colleagues may have. It is now time to assume our responsibilities once Parliament has signed, ratified, supported and negotiated this agreement. I made my request on the basis of Rule 112(2) and in relation to Rule 60(1), because it is not a legislative question. It is a constitutional question insofar as it is an interinstitutional agreement. Madam President, I would ask you to permit me a moment longer since I have not requested the floor for personal reasons. Yesterday I suffered aggression on the part of a Member, Mr Dupuis, who described the signatories of this request as “the accomplices of Mr Barón Crespo”. He then did me the honour of comparing me to one of his favourite heroes. He said that I was a Stalinist. Madam President, I believe that we should show each other respect and consideration in this Assembly, and that we should not confuse freedom of expression with systematic insults and political bullying. (Applause) And I, who try to respect my colleagues, would like to receive the same treatment. Mr Dupuis did not quite go as far as describing us as a revisionist clique, in the best Stalinist tradition. That would have been the last straw.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner Busquin, you are calling for greater integration of research activities at European level on the one hand and at national, regional and international level on the other. There is a very typical example in my region, namely the cooperation between the German Cancer Research Centre in Heidelberg and the Transuran Institute in Karlsruhe. The question arises: should we not in future bring in a European integration week highlighting good examples, and will integration not also require financial assistance from the European Union, which could be used to support particularly promising joint research ventures?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the verbatim report of proceedings for 16 March did not record my speech in full. I should like to correct it because the meaning has been distorted. It says: “I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction.” Now comes the mistake: “Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they “have distanced” themselves from the house of Habsburg” is what is recorded in the verbatim report of proceedings. It should read “will never distance”.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, once again, we declare our condemnation of any form of terrorism, whatever its source. As well as destroying human life, terrorism takes any possibility or capacity for democratic initiative away from the huge numbers of men and women who are fighting to change the unjust social and economic system of this world. Moreover, we condemn any attempt to assert the non-existent superiority of the moral, cultural or political systems of the communities of the European Union over other communities. We believe that, at this moment in history, one of the ways in which the European Union can combat and isolate any form of violence is to make a concerted effort to achieve the objective of giving the peoples of Israel and Palestine two autonomous, sovereign States, as stipulated in all those UN resolutions which Israel has been violating for years. The internal security of the Union must be reinforced – and I agree with much of what Mr Watson said – but always and only in respect for fundamental rights and the constraints of the rule of law. Therefore, any extension of the competences or spheres of operation of bodies such as Europol or Eurojust must go hand in hand with the creation of a system of judicial and, most importantly, democratic controls, with Parliament playing an active role. Any attempt to use the danger represented by terrorism to restrict or eliminate, by any means including Union or national legislative instruments, the huge democratic waves of dissent and opposition to the dominant social and economic system which are now sweeping through Europe and the world, must therefore be rejected, just as those legislative practices also referred to by Mr Barón Crespo such as the Italian laws on international letters rogatory, which are of practical assistance to terrorist and organised crime groups, must be condemned. We hope that the fight against terrorism, which is a crime against humanity, will increasingly be seen as the responsibility of the entire international community, that is of the UN, rather than the responsibility of a small number of wealthy, powerful nations who often use their wealth and power not to combat terrorism and its causes but to consolidate their economic and political power. The fact that the majority of the people in the world live in a state of despair, poverty and underdevelopment can never justify terrorism – never. This situation must be fought and eradicated by action, not just formal declarations, if we want our world to be at peace. This is another area in which we must take action if we genuinely want to eliminate terrorism. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to ask for your forgiveness since the Convention on the future of Europe is going to change things, as it is going to mean many meetings and much effort, but we will get there if we make that effort and if we are willing to talk, and that is what I wanted to do, by saying the following: We all have an interest in there being a constructive relationship between the European Union and the Arab Maghreb Union, but surely that constructive relationship must be based on a whole range of aspects, including political ones. If the Union wishes to act correctly on an international level, that action must be based on conflict prevention and crisis management and regrettably there is an historic conflict in the Maghreb region involving several countries and peoples which has not gone away: the Sahara conflict. The positive thing about the report presented by Mr Morillon and Mr Cohn-Bendit is firstly that it acknowledges the existence of that conflict, something which the European Union had not done for many years. This conflict was not on the Union’s agenda. This conflict must now appear on that agenda as a priority so that we can contribute, on the basis of international law, to the quest for a fair and negotiated solution which safeguards the rights of the peoples, beginning with the Saharaoui people’s right to self-determination and so that we can thereby put an end to an issue which causes great instability in terms of the future of the Arab Maghreb Union and the countries it consists of. In this respect, the situation is still regrettably deadlocked and it falls to the European Union to apply pressure so that it ceases to be so, and to apply pressure in a good sense, because it would benefit the region and would benefit Europe.

Political group: PSE
The project it is planned to carry out in Spain would involve using Community funds to subsidise continued and unsustainable over-consumption of water for intensive agriculture and mass tourism. The project is in danger of affecting areas bordering on the delta of the River Ebros, which are very valuable in terms of their bio-diversity in general and bird life in particular. The project has also met with very well-founded criticism from a large part of the research community in Spain. Against that background, I believe that the Community’s structural funds should instead support alternatives such as sustainable planning for water treatment in towns, the modernisation of irrigation methods, the integrated treatment of ground and surface water etc. I would therefore depart from the position adopted by the Group of the European People’s Party and . - International Criminal Court

Political group: PPE-DE
As usual, we have no objections to Commissioner Patten’s answer. We would emphasise that boycotts are not the right way to proceed – especially since we know that, in actual practice, most cases in which children are exploited for slave labour take place in private homes and on smallholdings. I am also grateful for the support he is giving to UNICEF’s work. Dark clouds are nonetheless visible on UNICEF’s horizon because of the decision not to elect the United States to the Commission for Human Rights. Is the Commissioner able to reveal anything about the possibility of supporting UNICEF’s work in these areas? We also know that the issue of sanctions against certain other countries in this region, for example against Liberia, is highly topical. Can the Commissioner assure us that this will not mean reduced support for UNICEF and for work aimed at children? We must have intelligent sanctions. We must support education, in particular, together with the rights-based approach you talked about.

Political group: ELDR
With regard to the Kindermann report, we believe that it is vitally important and a matter of regret that this regulation is not included, like the four other proposals by the Commission, within the co-decision framework. The proposal for a regulation is based on Article 37, relating to the common agricultural policy and aims to put in place more rational legislation to avoid the contamination of farm animals by products of animal origin containing pathogenic agents. We all remember the food-and-mouth epidemic which recently struck Europe and the ensuing crisis within the agricultural industry, primarily in the United Kingdom. Initial enquiries confirm that the contamination was caused by food of animal origin from third countries, which was used for pig feed. As far as animal-health conditions governing the production and sale of Community products are concerned, we must carry out careful and regular monitoring of the health state of producing regions. Official controls and Community inspections must be carried out without prior warning. So that we have the resources required, we must consider – as Mr Kindermann said – how many vets are needed in the Member States, as well as at the European Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin. In addition, our legal mechanism must take into account the candidate countries and we must make penalties uniform. As regards imports from third countries, we must have the same provisions as for Member States. However, overly strict hygiene measures must not be perceived as barriers to trade. If that is the case, we should make adjustments but continue to bear in mind the original aim of the regulation. We support Mr Kindermann’s report, which provides the necessary clarifications to the Commission proposal.

Political group: Verts-ALE
About 18 months ago the Council of the European Union nodded through a draft of the new Brussels regulation which essentially rubber-stamped old principles supposedly in order to apply them to modern conditions, but without thought, without real discussion and without consultation, I hope, whatever the result of the vote tomorrow, that both the Commission and Council will take note of the very extensive discussions and debate which we have had in this Parliament, which have taken account of the concerns both of business and consumers. I disagree with Mrs Wallis’ suggestion that, because of some criticism from David Byrne of the result reached in the Legal Affairs Committee, we should give way now. I would say it is our democratic duty to stand up for what we believe is the right solution for consumers and for e-commerce in the European Union regardless of whether that gives distress to Mr Byrne or not. I would give my wholehearted support to the conclusion reached in the Legal Affairs Committee. It is a common-sense balance between, on the one hand, protecting consumers and, on the other hand, ensuring that those same consumers have access to the low prices and wide choices that are available with the truly competitive market. We have to decide, in a new era where physical location has become almost meaningless, where a dispute is eventually litigated, where a dispute is eventually solved. To allow consumers and businesses the freedom to make that choice themselves is the most pragmatic and the most common-sense solution and this gives the maximum certainty both to business and to consumers. It does not strip consumers of their pre-existing rights. It gives them choices and it reflects their enhanced status in a new Internet world, which gives them more power and more choices than ever before. If small businesses are driven out of the market because of the proposals from the Commission or if we adopt Mrs Wallis’ amendments tomorrow then it will be consumers who suffer because it will leave them at the mercy of the large global players and it will deprive them of the low prices that they deserve under the new Internet economy. Even more importantly, it will also threaten the new economy and the e-economy in the European Union. We are sadly far behind the United States and, if tomorrow we support the amendments proposed by Mrs Wallis, we will stay far behind the United States. With the Commission’s proposals, we certainly have the worst of both worlds. We have uncertainty and legal risk for business without genuine consumer protection, because in many cases the right to sue in your own home court may be illusory if you cannot enforce the judgment without going overseas and incurring the same inconvenience as if you had to go overseas in any event to litigate this issue. The Legal Affairs Committee has come up with a pragmatic solution. It is a common sense balance to a difficult issue and I would appeal to the House to support the resolution as put forward by the Legal Affairs Committee.

Political group: PPE-DE
At the forthcoming European Summit in Gothenburg, the Fifteen will most probably demonstrate once again that they are unable to build a democratic and social Europe. Entrenched in its inability to sustain a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, Europe will continue to stand by and watch the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people without being able to enforce UN Resolutions 242 and 338 or insist that the settlements are dismantled. A few months ahead of the introduction of the euro, Europe will prove equally unable to intervene to prevent the dictatorship of the markets, letting transnational trusts like Marks [amp] Spencer or Danone dismiss thousands of employees while amassing profits of several million euros. We need European legislation that prohibits market-based dismissals, just as we need to introduce a tax on capital movements and to abolish tax havens. What is more, however, following the failure of the Treaty of Nice, the Fifteen will continue to promote a Europe that is geared entirely to liberalism by continuing to privatise the public services and calling the systems of social protection into question. Ireland’s recent rejection of this treaty shows, once again, that Europe cannot be built without the consent of its people. We need to hold referendums on the future of Europe and we need to review and amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We urgently need to reduce the democratic deficit between the citizens and their representatives. In Gothenburg, the future of Europe will be played out not in palaces turned into bunkers but on the streets, with the progressive forces.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights says in its preamble: ‘It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice’, and in its first article it adds: ‘Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected’. I bring in this quotation from the Charter of Fundamental Rights because some situations described in this magnificent report – I congratulate the rapporteur on it – are probably incompatible with this declaration that has just been willingly adopted by this Parliament. Compared with these statements, reality is stubborn. Eurostat data tells us that 18% of the population of the European Union live on less than 60% of average national income or, in other words, 65 million Europeans are living in poverty. Naturally the national poverty rates are varied and different, as are the types of poverty: urban, in industrial slums, in isolated rural areas, etc., or the poverty linked to sex or age discrimination – I am referring, of course, to poverty among women and child poverty. Today’s worlds, the society of globalisation and the world economy, the society of information and technological development, may also have a not very positive influence and create, or help to create, new forms of poverty, on account of the intrinsic difficulties in this kind of society in opening up access to employment – to me this is the fundamental route to social integration and inclusion – and because of the need to improve employment and obtain higher-quality jobs. Europe has created a lot of employment. In my country, Spain, José María Aznar’s government has made an effort and adopted a commitment: it has succeeded in bringing down a high unemployment rate, and it is still upholding this objective, which is being met, and this commitment. But I do not think we should be satisfied just with what has been achieved. To achieve a Europe that encourages integration, in the words of the Lisbon European Council, requires joint effort and joint action. This comes through knowing the characteristics and the means that can get everyone involved, in society as a whole and in the various governments, on account of the need to quantify objectives and eradicate child poverty, because child poverty must generate other kinds of poverty and perhaps establish formulae of social exclusion that perpetuate poverty and perhaps even destitution. Therefore, Commissioner, I ask for a special effort to be made to eradicate this child poverty.

Political group: PPE-DE
There are insufficient safeguards for legal rights in the proposal presented by Denmark. It is unacceptable that Member States would be able to confiscate property owned by the defendant or their family members, who have nothing to do with the criminal activity, if the convicted person cannot prove that this property was acquired by legitimate means. This involves something as revolutionary as reversing the burden of proof. The committee’s amendments are certainly good, as they are aimed at repudiating the reversed burden of proof, but this still does not clarify the situation sufficiently. A satisfactory legal text should clearly establish that only property deriving from proven criminal activity, or of equivalent value, can be seized. We Swedish believe that the wording of the framework decision should be discussed further, so that no hasty restriction of legal rights occurs. Although I believe that harmonised EU legislation plays an important role in facilitating the fight against crime, from the point of view of legal rights I am forced to abstain on this matter. - Report Stevenson (A5-0380/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE