GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The state of permanent constitutional upheaval which is a characteristic of the contemporary EU is a major shortcoming in our constitutional arrangements. With the Treaty of Nice, coming so soon after the Treaty of Amsterdam and to be followed by another IGC in 2004 we live in an Age of Permanent Revolution. There are signs that this successor IGC may achieve a degree of constitutional settlement which is much to be welcomed and to reach it, it is necessary to pass through the Treaty of Nice despite its self-evident shortcomings.

Political group: PPE-DE
One of the great criticisms of the EU in Britain is that it appears to go beyond what was intended when competences were granted to it, both in depth of detail and in scope of application. We, in the Conservative Party, are looking into ways of ring-fencing competence which will run with the letter and spirit of the Treaties and recognise the position of the Member States at the heart of the European political process. Enumerating and entrenching the inalienable characteristics of the system which guarantee rights to individuals and define the limits of the political process, across a number of Member States which comprise a single quasi-domestic legal area, offers a fruitful avenue to explore, to try to achieve these desirable ends. The problem with the Charter of Fundamental Rights is that it is hybrid, neither a legally entrenched system of rights nor a political code of conduct which draws together legal, economic and social rights in a manner, and this leads to confusion and lack of clarity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the proposed arrangements have a dual purpose. First, to restore the shaken climate of confidence of small working-class investors in the institution of the stock exchange, so that grass-roots savings can continue to be plundered unimpeded and, secondly, to set up a regulatory framework for the action of the big investors. In other words, the aim is to consolidate the stock exchange as a mechanism for concentrating capital and safeguarding a quick, easy profit for monopoly groups. The proposals for measures to be taken are not at all convincing. In its communication, the Commission talks of practices which will improve the reliability of the market and help to attract capital, in other words, they will allay the fears of small investors so that they can plunder their savings with impunity. Having succeeded in sweetening them with a taste of the profits so that they gamble all their savings, by applying the idea of easy money, they have also managed to turn their heads by inciting them to raise gambling to an art form. So far, not only have no substantial control measures been taken, but also recent repeated scandals have revealed that even these very control mechanisms have advocated cheating by adopting creative accounting methods, and as a result the savings of the working classes, the capital of small investors and pension funds have grown wings and flown into the coffers of the monopoly groups, which grow rich in this parasitical manner. The history to date of the stock exchange and of the control mechanisms relating to it show that it is the place where 'big fish eats little fish' applies absolutely. The myth that state controls can limit speculation in the very temple of speculation has now been exposed. Only an economic and political way out that puts grass-roots needs first and socialises the basic means of production constitutes a promising prospect for safeguarding grass-roots incomes today.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I will recall the words of Mr Leinen by pointing out that, at this time, the majority of this Parliament is in favour of the President of the Commission being elected by Parliament, which represents a substantial advance, because two years ago the majority of Parliament voted against this initiative, and is also evidence of the progress the European political union is making. It is good to remember this at a time when there may be a humanitarian disaster in Iraq and when, for this reason, there is an attack by the United States with allies within the European Union, and allied with States which wish to join the European Union, against the idea of the existence of a political union present throughout the world. And I would draw this Parliament’s attention, since this is the place where the political notion of Europe must progress, to those who are attacking us by means of internal allies.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for their fine and excellent work. At the same time, I would like to agree with Mrs Maij-Weggen’s view that religious freedom has been addressed in a far too limited manner. This issue concerns the deepest values of millions of people and the whole basis for their lives. In Egypt, a neighbour of the EU, converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death. The Coptic Christians feel like second-class citizens. The Christian minority in Turkey continues to shrink. Why are an increasing number of people of the Christian faith moving from this country? The European Parliament played an important part in ensuring that Syrian Christian priest Yusuf Akbulut was acquitted of all charges in the State Security Court in Diyarbakir at Easter. There is much to do in this area. Three hundred thousand people have left the Moluccas – most of them Christians. They are persecuted by Muslim Jihad fighters. Compulsory conversion has taken place with over 1 000 people being forced into a faith and view of life other than their own. I would also like to say that the French act on religious freedom leaves a great deal to be desired. There is considerable concern among many Protestant and evangelical Christians around Europe regarding the implications of French legislation on religion. What a poor – and I mean poor – example this is for a large number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including the Czech Republic, as these countries are about to adopt new legislation. We must be careful to ensure that we do not create an intolerant Europe where only one faith is acceptable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to express my support and that of my Group for the report from the Conciliation Committee. I also congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs González Álvarez, who has done an excellent job. The report before us makes for a significant improvement on current legislation governing the safety of products. Of the points agreed, I particularly welcome the fact that stronger action can now be taken at Community level under the rapid alert system where there is a serious risk to consumers, so that dangerous products can be taken off the market. It is important that we have adequate and independent certification to comply with the relevant product safety criteria and clear labelling for consumers. The fact that the Commission will be reporting regularly to Parliament is significant, as is the reference to the precautionary principle and the duty of the relevant authorities in Member States to interpret this in relation to all products. My Group believes that all consumers, both within and outside the European Union, should be treated equally. As the rapporteur has stressed several times during discussions on this directive, safety should be assured for all consumers. I am also glad that agreement has been reached on antique and charity shops and car boot sales, as by their nature they cannot provide information about second-hand goods but do provide a very valuable service. Overall, we need a good balance between ensuring that products put on the market are safe and seeing to it that the measures proposed to that end can be implemented in practice. This report partially achieves that and the consumer organisations which have welcomed earlier drafts of this directive will welcome this one, too. Our top priority is to ensure that consumers are protected and that they have the right to know which products are dangerous and what is being done about them. This report makes significant improvements to existing legislation and hopefully will have the support of Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, many congratulations to the rapporteur. She has produced a very well-balanced report. It proposes sensible amendments which will not impose unreasonable burdens on firms, but which will improve the directive and reduce the risk of hearing loss resulting from exposure to noise at work. That is what this proposal is all about. Too many workers within the European Union continue to be at risk of hearing loss due to exposure to noise at work. Mrs Thorning-Schmidt has shown herself to be reasonable and willing to listen to reasonable and reasoned argument and evidence. She did, after all, withdraw many of her initial amendments, tabling new ones which move closer to, or back to, the common position on a number of elements including key action and exposure limit values. But others in this House are straining to carve a new and retrograde path in the social field. For the first time in conciliation in the social field we are seeing moves, particularly on the right and centre groupings of the House, to weaken significantly common positions established in the Social Affairs Council, and even, at times, to exclude significant sectors of activity from the legislation altogether. We have seen this in relation to this proposal on noise and the parallel proposal on vibration. Compromise Amendment No 23 on the music and entertainment sectors is a response to such a danger. Do not get me wrong: it might conceivably be necessary to weaken the common position when new information or evidence previously overlooked comes to light, but in my view that has not been the case in the examples I mention. We have instead seen something tantamount to a panic response to concentrated, manipulative lobbying and adverse media coverage fed by deliberate disinformation and misinformation. These developments are to be deplored. At least two factors seem to be at work. Firstly, lobby groups have woken up to the pressure points in the codecision procedure. They know how to apply political pressure, much of it far from evidence-based, on Parliament. They think we are the weakest link, and the signal we are sending them is that they are absolutely correct. Secondly, too many Members of this House delight in issuing press releases seeking to trivialise legislation that is entirely necessary, justified and proportionate. They will not let facts get in the way of seeing their own name in print and it is not hard to see why so many ill-informed articles have appeared concerning this proposal. They have been fed by grossly misleading or totally factually incorrect press releases and briefings from Members of this House. I hope that we can all grow up quickly and bring a little more dignity and integrity to our role as co-legislator. My own father finds it difficult to converse with my infant son because of industrially-induced hearing loss. That seems to me a very good reason to promote sensible legislation like this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to thank the Council of Ministers and the Commission for their respective interventions. The Women’s Conference at the UN in New York came perilously close to failing. A small group of Catholic and Islamic fundamentalist countries clearly intended to undermine the progress achieved by women from around the world in Beijing five years ago. The issues which created the most problems were women’s rights to sex education, free abortion and safe sex in order to protect themselves against HIV and AIDS. These issues united certain Islamic and Catholic countries ranging all the way from the Sudan, Iran and Libya to the Vatican, Nicaragua and Poland, which were prime movers in the fight against these rights. Some countries attempted to quash wordings about governments’ responsibility to protect women from various forms of violence. In spite of the fact that, last week, we were in danger of turning the clock back, we eventually agreed upon a final document which looks ahead to progress on the basis of the Women’s Conference in Beijing and, at the same time, marks out the route towards increased equality in the future. I should like to point out that the Presidency of the EU, especially the minister Mrs De Belém Roseira, actively contributed to a successful final outcome, something we would thank her for. The final document embodies progress in certain respects. Forced marriages and murders committed for reasons of honour are mentioned for the first time in an agreed international document. On the issues of rape within marriage, right of possession and right of inheritance, together with the right to asylum on the grounds of gender-based persecution, the wordings have been strengthened. Women’s right to equal participation in macro-economic decision-making, together with the allocation of quotas with a view to increasing women’s participation in political parties and parliaments are other matters which are being taken up. The resolution we are to vote on demands that the institutions of the EU, Member States and candidate States make active efforts to turn the final document from Beijing +5 into a reality. It is especially important that all candidate States, including Poland, undertake to abide by the EU’s policy on women’s rights. What are now required are economic resources for putting the decisions into effect and inspection tools for supervising their implementation.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, with regard to Rule 1 et seq, it seems very unfortunate to me to compare the rights of MEPs with the situation regarding British cattle. I believe they are unrelated.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, while, in many areas, the European legislation which we produce here is often openly criticised – quite rightly – we should recognise that the 1985 directive on undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities was, for once, a masterpiece. The success it has had in the investment fund sector and with the clients of these funds bears witness to this. It has also become an example for legislation on a world scale. Since it entered into force in 1989, not only have the assets of the UCITSs increased dramatically, but also cross-border trade has developed very strongly. It has therefore achieved the objectives it was intended for. However, if, after ten years, this directive needs a ‘facelift’ in order to adapt to the evolution of the markets, to the increasingly sophisticated financial products available, I remain concerned about the fate of the older funds, which do not meet the new demands. That is why I had advocated a clause for these funds, a so-called ‘grandfather’ clause, which would be unrestricted. Also in this field there are acquired rights, which it would be unfair to modify in a backdated fashion. If there is no such clause, there will be a significant risk of market insecurity, which would have disastrous effects on the performance of the funds, prejudicing not only the industry but also the investors. And above all, the weaker consumers, who do not keep so up-to-date with financial matters and who therefore react more slowly to them, will be the most affected. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has finally expressed its preference for a clause which is restricted in time. This is the lesser evil, even if this clause may have negative effects, in terms of competition, for the older UCITSs, all of which will probably not be able to adapt to the new provisions of the directive in the best operational and financial conditions. Mr President, I therefore hope that the House will vote in favour of this restricted clause. Please allow me to point out that I am also opposed to the amendment by Mr Goebbels, which would have the effect of delaying, indeed sacrificing, the modified directive, which we are able to live with, despite its shortcomings – but it would appear to be a lost cause from the outset. Mr Goebbels would do well, I believe, to withdraw his amendment. He can put it in cold storage until there is a better occasion to table it once again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the directive on temporary agency work marks an even more organised and methodological attack on the right to full, stable employment and social insurance. It shows that the policy of flexible forms of work is alive and kicking, it exacerbates the exploitation of the workers and it confuses the fight of the workers' movement. The fact that all this is happening with the assent of the compromised leaders of the trade union movement and the International Labour Organisation merely demonstrates their destructive role. The claim that the directive safeguards and enhances the professional status of working victims, that it improves health and safety and that it increases employment is pure fraud. The truth is that this is a well-organised attempt to step up exploitation and share out unemployment by creating modern slave-trade organisations. Protecting full, stable employment with rights for everyone is always a vital objective but it will only be achieved by stepping up the fight against the monopolies and the anti-labour policy of the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mrs Smet referred to the fact that a majority in the Group were in favour of including the self-employed. I am sure that is true. But I am sure she would also agree that there is a significant minority who take a completely opposite view. This morning I chaired a press conference here on the subject of burdens on business. I was joined on the platform by colleagues from Austria, Finland and Sweden – Members from other countries would have come if they could have – who much shared the views which I will now share with the House. Since the publication of the Hughes report, I have been personally bombarded with complaints from the UK Removers' Association, the Confederation of Passenger Transport, the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and the International Road Transport Union, as well as small local haulage companies and self-employed lorry drivers. They are united in their horror at amendments that would put UK operators out of business, and in their amazement that these proposals are coming from a UK MEP. There is no evidence that self-employed lorry drivers, who rely on their own health and, on the safety of their vehicles for their day-to-day business existence, are in need of more EU legislation to make them more safe. There is no evidence that Member States, when they agreed the common position, were unmindful of their health and safety responsibilities. There is no requirement on Parliament to tighten up this legislation now. The rapporteur's amendments would lead to lower earnings for professional drivers, increase road congestion and pollution and raise transport costs. Given that UK hauliers are already paying the highest fuel taxes in the world, these proposals would be the last straw for many in the UK road haulage industry. They also show no understanding of the needs of the industry, or its employees. These last three sentences are not my words. They are the words of the UK Road Haulage Association. UK Conservative MEPs will be rejecting all the Hughes amendments. We shall not be alone.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, North Korea is a brutal, secretive communist dictatorship. It has a history of political assassination, blowing up the South Korean cabinet in Rangoon a few years back. It has blown up a South Korean civilian airliner. It has kidnapped innocent Japanese civilians, most of whom have died in mysterious circumstances. Most recently, it has starved many of its people to death due to its disastrous isolationist economic policies. It remains a failing and rogue state which means that the West, including the European Union, must tread very carefully in its attempts to engage with North Korea and bring it out of the cold. The DPRK agreed in 1994 to freeze and dismantle its nuclear programme, and by its recent admission of possession of nuclear weapons it has clearly breached the non-proliferation treaty and the agreed framework of KEDO. I believe it is right to call this regime part of the axis of evil. Unlike Iraq, which has yet to acquire nuclear weapons, it is now too late to do anything militarily to prevent its nuclear proliferation. Every pressure must be brought to bear to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back in. Pakistan, our ally in the war on terrorism, should also be challenged on its role in this weapons programme, as it allegedly provided an exchange for North Korean missiles to weaponise its own nuclear bomb. China's role needs scrutiny and that country must be reminded that it is officially opposed to the nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. If the DPRK does not agree to reverse its policy and disarm in terms of its nuclear weapons then the whole KEDO contribution by the European Union should be terminated. I support placing the budgetary line as a first step in the reserve to be released according to diplomatic progress. Nevertheless, humanitarian aid must continue through the World Food Programme and ECHO. The European Union is one of the few bodies to have formal relations with this country and must use its leverage and access to its government to resolve this situation satisfactorily.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was scheduled yesterday to speak in the debate on the media but, unfortunately, because of problems getting to Strasbourg, I was unable to make my timeslot. I simply want to say that coming from the United Kingdom – renowned for its fogs, not to say for its smogs – I can in no way criticise the climate of Strasbourg. Indeed, I want to congratulate and thank the airport staff for putting safety first. I simply want to apologise to the presidency and to the House for missing my timeslot. I had left my home at 6 a.m. in a brave attempt to be here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Caudron’s report adopts a position on the frameworks within which we should conduct research in Europe, financed by Community funds through the Sixth Framework Programme, and on the priorities we should be adopting. As a Christian Democrat, I believe that we need ethical frameworks in society. These ethical frameworks must also exist where research is concerned. The most fundamental of these aspects is respect for human dignity. However worthy the objective may be, it does not justify our using people as a means to an end. Research using embryo stem cells is ethically very controversial and, moreover, prohibited in four of the Member States. That is not the case when it comes to the use of adult stem cells. It is therefore my view that priority ought to be given to research using adult stem cells, while embryo stem cell research, which is deeply controversial from an ethical point of view, must not be allocated funds from the framework programme. Within the framework of the subsidiarity principle, that does not mean that national governments cannot choose to support the research. Funds from the framework programme are, despite everything, limited. We are forced to prioritise. Support ought not, therefore, to be given to research which is ethically so controversial and is, moreover, clearly contrary to the legislation of several Member States. I have therefore chosen to support Amendment 334, to which I myself subscribed, where it says, in paragraph 4, that research using embryo stem cells must not be financed by Community funds, because the Member States disagree on this issue.

Political group: PPE-DE