GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as a Christian I feel ashamed at the way Mr Marchiani has misused the concept of Christianity. I do not regard the murder of Muslims as a Christian duty. Terrorism, arms trading and drug trafficking also exist in other states, including our own Member States. Nevertheless, no one is suggesting that we should simply be bombing those Member States, including Mr Marchiani's own country. We need to be clear about the fact that people are indulging in emotional manipulation here. We are certainly not talking about a war on terrorism – we are talking about the creation of terrorism. The Chechens have been the victims of colonial persecution for 150 years. They were deported by Stalin. In the modern era, they have twice been overrun in brutal wars serving oil interests. Mr Putin's election campaign was one of the factors underlying the intensification of the second of these wars, which is still being waged. So it has to be said for once and all that this is not a war on terror, it is more likely to encourage terrorists! We have a share in the responsibility for all this. So how have we reacted? The beautiful city of Copenhagen was boycotted by Mr Putin simply because the Danes exercised their democratic right to respect freedom of expression and freedom of association. So why did the Council then shift to Brussels? Commissioner Nielson, who is responsible for humanitarian issues in Europe, has not announced that he is to visit Chechnya, but rather that he is to attend a banquet for Heads of State and Government in St Petersburg. Let me say this very clearly: it makes me sick to be part of a Europe that is sipping Crimean champagne in St Petersburg while people are bleeding to death on the streets of Chechnya. I believe that Europe's most noble task is to advocate freedom and human rights. Yesterday we were celebrating the presence of our Baltic colleagues in our midst for the first time. Our colleagues from the Baltic states also owe their freedom to a Chechen, General Dudayev, who at that time refused to take part in the bloody repression of the Baltic freedom movement as he had been ordered to do as a Soviet officer! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is in favour of Croatia’s accession to the European Union. It will also point the way to accession for other countries in the western Balkan region. Macedonia has already submitted its application. The Group supports Croatia in its efforts to prepare for accession to the EU and to succeed in the accession negotiations. At the same time we would state that we require better levels of cooperation from Croatia with the Hague Court than hitherto. Our group is asking for a separate vote on paragraph 1(q), which urges Member States to ratify the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and Croatia. Some Member States have postponed ratification precisely because they have been dissatisfied with Croatia’s levels of cooperation with the Hague Court. Our group thinks they should be able to consider when the agreement should be ratified themselves. Croatia’s accession will once again be a new step in the enlargement of the European Union. When Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and the five countries in the western Balkan region join the Union, the number of Member States will rise to 33. Moldova and Ukraine have also taken their first step towards accession, and they have been invited to the European conference. Enlargement works on the principle that all European countries that fulfil the conditions for accession can join the Union. As enlargement progresses the EU’s Wider Europe Policy and Neighbourhood Policy will become ever more important. The European Parliament must also get more involved in these than it has up till now. On the other hand, a rapidly enlarging Union must differentiate internally, employing a process of closer cooperation. Internal differentiation and the Wider Europe Policy will gradually allow us to create a Europe of concentric circles. Finally, I would like to thank my colleague Alexandros Baltas for his excellent work in drafting this report. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. This directive confirms once and for all that European democracy and transparency is closely connected to the freedom and pluralism of the media. Therefore, media concentration jeopardises freedom of conscience and is a grave injury to human dignity. In its Green Paper of 21 May 2003, the Commission calls for specific measures to be looked at once again to actively protect pluralism; in its Recommendation of 28 January 2003, the Council expressed the same concern; in its Resolution of 20 November and the two reports by Mr Sylla and Mr Perry, Parliament said likewise. We must, therefore, give a specific response through a Commission initiative to this effect. We are in a constituent phase. The draft Constitution includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 11(2) of which explicitly enshrines the right to freedom and pluralism of the media. What sense is there, however, in adopting a Constitution when that is, itself, negated by the present situation?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, information on the euro is for the public and is meant to satisfy their need for information in particular. The information must come in cooperation with the Member States, but what, in my opinion, is of most importance is that NGOs are kept fully aware of what is happening. We have to reach grassroots level as swiftly as we can, in a language that is perfectly clear. The so-called two-stage information strategy, where peer groups keep each other’s members informed, has turned out to be the best of all options, and this should be put to good use too in dealing with this information issue. I fear those information campaigns that are led by the Commission. They are often sweet as candy and very beautifully contrived. The fact that this information campaign is being made with the support of NGOs and via them will hopefully prevent a repeat of that. The arrival of the euro will also entail a lot of practical questions for consumers. Above all we have to take care that prices do not trail upwards when the currencies are finally changed over. In this the consumer organisations have a very big and important job, and women’s organisations must also be taken into account, as women need information on this. It is absolutely essential that cross-border giros and payment transactions are in accordance with the principles of the Internal Market. I am glad that the President of the European Central Bank, Mr Duisenberg, also paid attention to this and promised that the ECB would produce a report on the subject. I genuinely hope that these practical matters, which are a thorny subject for consumers, are attended to before the euro comes into proper circulation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work. The recommendation for second reading before us is an extremely important legislative resolution, not just for the environment but also for the economy of the European Union. This can be seen from the many letters which we receive from environmental associations and from the economic sector, not least of course the cement industry, but also many others such as the wood-processing industry, the paper industry, the metalworking industry and so on. I think that we must regard both sets of arguments as important, those of the environmental associations and also those of industry, because industry has also put forward arguments from a genuinely environmental viewpoint and not just from an economic viewpoint. We should treat this seriously. Not all amendments which are probably well intentioned from the environmental viewpoint are necessarily an improvement on the current situation. I think this can be seen from some of the amendments which were put forward in committee with regard to coincineration and which now reappear as amendments in plenary. We cannot in any way guarantee that in restricting coincineration we will actually achieve what we want environmentally. Above all we want to save fossil fuels. If we set up the hurdles wrong here, then we will not achieve the right environmental objective. For this reason, our Group rejects the amendments which have been resubmitted by Mr Blokland, the and others. However, I think that there are still some amendments decided on in committee which we can support in good conscience in order to improve the common position. For example, I tabled a motion in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy relating to NOx emitted during coincineration which, at least for new installations, is somewhat more ambitious than the Council’s proposals. I think it is realistic and, as the industry in question is saying the same, albeit with its hand in front of its mouth, we should be altogether more positive. I think, therefore, that we are on the right track in accepting much of what has been decided in the committee, but certainly nothing which goes any further.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my question is, can I ask for an answer from the Council, as happened with an earlier question, and can I do so under the same conditions as before and receive a proper answer?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I was among those Members who wanted a debate to be held on this issue, given the alarm that had spread among the public. Immediately after Christmas and New Year, a number of articles appeared in the French media, mentioning probable dangers. An announcement was actually made but was not actively followed up, which left consumers with unanswered questions. I remember some years ago, at least five, possibly six years ago, talking with someone who worked with Mr Fischler at the Commission, who told me, when we were in the midst of the BSE crisis, that the second food crisis to hit Europe would be in farmed salmon. Those words stayed with me and this is why I was keen for a debate to take place on the matter. He was certainly exaggerating somewhat – I hope so anyway – and what the Commissioner has just told us would appear to bear this out. Nonetheless, I feel that it was important for us to be able to pass on some answers to our fellow citizens so that they know what they have to do. When we established the European Food Authority, we emphasised how important it was that communication should be commensurate with the level of risk. In this regard, when the press articles appeared at the end of 2003, I would have liked the Commission to offer us an immediate response, rather than – somewhat regrettably – waiting until mid-February, when Parliament requested the information. With problems of this nature, it is wrong to focus on the difficulties faced by one economic sector or another. I put myself in the place of the salmon farmers and of the regions that are – or could have been – affected by information of this kind. Such a situation has economic knock-on effects and we are duty bound to bear this in mind. Our overriding concern, however, is food safety for our fellow citizens. I therefore believe that it is our duty, and this is especially important, to ensure transparency at all times and to communicate answers at the appropriate moment, so as to avoid a vacuum of information that may increase people’s concerns. Even so, Commissioner, you tell us that the quality of salmon leaves something to be desired, yet you affirm elsewhere that what could be detected as doses of dioxin was below maximum levels set by the EU, and we are all relieved at that. What I should personally like to request from you is not only that controls be implemented, but also that decisions be taken in order to ensure that farmed fish is better monitored and, more importantly, that it reaches appropriate sanitary levels. This is what I wanted to say, Commissioner, and what we expect from you is that controls should be put in place and swiftly followed by action, so as to offer complete reassurance to European consumers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I said a month ago that this was a European disaster and requested a European response. The Galician citizens – my fellow citizens – who are caught up in a titanic fight against the oil that has arrived on their doorsteps, have been the casual victims and have paid the price for all European citizens. Since day one, therefore I have insisted both here and there on the need to provide a clear and simple European response, as we did for the floods in Germany, which takes account of two aspects: prevention and mitigation. Should we toughen and change transport legislation? Yes. Should we reprimand ministers? Yes. But we need to do more. We need to explain to the people who are currently collecting oil by hand why there are no resources and assure them that, if this were to happen again, these resources would be available. We need to tell them, at the very least, that we are sorry for the lack of resources and coordination that there have been in addressing this disaster from the very beginning. They are the ones who are enduring this, and their cries for help have reached this Parliament, and we cannot deny this fact. The Galician, and therefore, European citizens need to feel supported in the long and difficult journey into which the negligence of their own ministers has thrown them. We therefore cannot understand why anyone in this Parliament would be opposed to knowing what has happened, where mistakes have been made and what we must do to ensure that this never happens again. This is not a disaster of European dimensions: it is a European disaster and we do not want it to be repeated anywhere. If it does happen again, however, we clearly cannot act as we have done here. The pathetic images that have been shown around the world – which have shown what I saw – make it unnecessary, Mr Galeote, for me to give any further explanation. We Galicians are strong. We always have been, we have always been able to fight against adversity and we shall not let ourselves be beaten by this disaster. What my people in Galicia cannot understand is why, if all of Europe recognises the lesson that we as a people are giving, the Group in this Parliament continues to deny us the opportunity to clarify what has happened, assess the damage and propose emergency and crisis management programmes at European level that could serve all Europeans. We are not the ones who can answer this question, we compatriots, as Mr Galeote says. Compatriots are not the same thing as accomplices, and we do not want to be accomplices. Do not insult us by asking us for complicity in the decisions of a government that for a whole month tried to minimise this disaster and has been incapable of mobilising the Community institutions. On the other hand, Mrs de Palacio, you should ask the Spanish Government a question. Nobody has been able to use and set in motion the abundant means available to Europe. Why not? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think that the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets is right. The purpose of the amendments that we adopted is clearly that ultimately everything should remain within the budget. I would therefore say that there will be sufficient room for manoeuvre in this matter to amend, shall we say, the wording, should this be necessary, to ensure that this is the case. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0182/2003) by Karl Erik Olsson, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 (COM(2003) 23 – C5-0041/2003 – 2003/0007(CNS)) Before the vote on the legislative resolution:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is Parliament’s intention to give consumers reassurance and also to provide a firm and clear legal framework for companies which work with GMOs. The Commission’s regulation is not clear on either front. Firstly, I would like to say that, to my mind, there is an injudicious use of terminology. You are using the word contamination, whilst, in my opinion, what you mean to say is “presence”. This is why I have submitted an amendment to our text to delete the word contamination. Then there is also a lack of clarity, as mentioned by Mrs Jackson and Mr Bowe in this respect. Up to one percent is permitted in unforeseen circumstances, so by accident. I would like to know from you what constitutes these unforeseen circumstances, when it is and is not permitted. How is this evidenced? You also require proof. I am wondering how this is done. Case by case: how should I interpret this? So if, for example, a lorry has loaded 20 tonnes of corn, then 200 kg of this may be genetically modified corn. This is one percent. Or is this not permitted? So if a ship is loaded with 50,000 tonnes of soybean – I hear the largest ships can hold 50,000 tonnes – this may contain 500 tonnes, 500,000 kg of genetically modified soybean. Or have I got this wrong? Do you then say: if there is only 500 tonnes of GM soybean in this ship that this ship is GM-free? I must say, this sounds rather absurd to me. So I would like to find out from you what you mean by one percent in ingredients. Where and when will you check this? Under those circumstances, I do wonder if a label makes sense and the situation becomes completely absurd because the literature and circumstances show that a number of varieties can be imported and others cannot. How can you check up on this because it may involve hundreds of tonnes of goods which you are unaware are being imported. The Commission should take measures as a matter of urgency, clarify its proposals and shed more light on the whole matter. If food companies wish to offer commodities to their customers which are GMO-free, they should be able to do this and this is not possible under the current circumstances.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, last night I dreamt about Mrs van den Burg. She did not appear to me as a young girl, like when we dream of the Virgin Mary: I had pored over her document for so long that I dreamt she was an elderly lady. It was 40 years in the future and so she was in her sixties. She said to me, ‘I signed up with all the temporary work agencies to try and find a job, but when the time came to give me a job, they all said: 'We didn’t like your report much! You can wait,' and so I have not found a job in the last 40 years.’ ‘Why ever not?’, I asked her. ‘Because in my report, discussed 40 years ago in the European Parliament, I did not provide enough safeguards for people who sign up with temporary work agencies to ensure that they would be fairly placed in jobs by these agencies. Therefore, in your explanation of vote, urge the House and Mrs van den Burg to do something about this part of the report too!’

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, first my heartfelt thanks to my friend and delegation leader Méndez de Vigo, who swapped places with me because I was due to head a conciliation for parliament. The convention did a grand job. With this result, Minister, Europe has created an awareness of its intellectual principles, which we can use to measure what holds it together at its very core. Many new rights for children, the elderly and the disabled are mentioned, together – and I find this most interesting – with a new freedom to conduct a business which is almost tantamount to a sort of ban on socialism. (Protests) It is, to all intents and purposes. And anyway you are social democrats, not s. It is also important for me that the preamble refers quite clearly to spiritual/religious principles, because anyone who denies his roots cannot grow and if you cannot grow, you cannot blossom. And we want a Europe which blossoms, prospers and grows, which is why we wanted and were right to refer to our roots. So what happens next? The Charter of Fundamental Rights is to become part of a future European constitutional treaty – a constitutional treaty, mind you, not a constitution –, in order to make it perfectly clear that the European Union is not a state, it is not a nation state; on the contrary, the European Union goes its own separate way. The nation states still have their special position and it is they and only they which can amend the treaties through the usual ratification process. This is what we mean when we talk of a constitutional treaty rather than a constitution. If we are want to be credible, then we cannot apply the concepts of 19th and 20th century constitutional case law to the development of the European Union; we must develop special new concepts. That is why we are right to say not state but union of states, Commission or Executive rather than government, constitutional treaty rather than constitution. If we want Europe to succeed, we need to define these concepts clearly; if we want Europe to succeed, we need a streamlined Europe. We want Europe to succeed and that means that the principles must be right, the concepts – the clearly-defined concepts – must be right, the division of powers must be right and then perhaps, at the next European elections in 2004, we will be in a position to present a constitutional treaty, a complete constitutional treaty which will win the citizens' confidence and convince the experts. Success starts with clear concepts. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
PPE-). – (DE) Mr President, I support this resolution by the , , Liberals and the UEN. I see it as a particularly good thing that, at the start of the joint resolutions, we are emphasising the values which Europe and Latin America share, as it is important that we see this partnership not only in an economic light, but that we can also speak of our common values and their consequences in political terms. I believe that certain elements which the have tried to introduce are also positive – for example, that we should have more to say about sustainability. Overall, though, the ' resolution, and that of the UEN, are too negative, with their opposition to the USA, to globalisation, and to free trade, which I do not think gets us very far. We need here a balanced relationship between constructive cooperation and justified criticism of details. I expressly support what Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra had to say about the Budget. Nothing is achieved by much talking and putting on great summits and at the same time allocating less money. That is what the Commission has proposed over and over again in the last few years. Over and over again, we have prevented it, but the Commission really should, for once, come up with constructive proposals at the outset. Mrs Malmström and Mr Queiró had a certain amount to say about Cuba. I believe it to be of the utmost importance that we should avoid sending the wrong signals to Cuba at the present time when people there are calling loud and clear for democracy. We are of course opposed to the embargo, but we also oppose dictatorship and the violation of human rights. That is why dialogue with the European Union can gain Cuba concessions only if the situation there as regards democracy and human rights improves. I would like to conclude with the suggestion that, in opening up markets, we should focus above all on the poorer countries of Latin America. I believe we can agree on mutual free trade with both Mexico and Chile, but perhaps not with the same timetable, but with countries such as Nicaragua, Honduras and Bolivia, we should also prioritise unilateral preferences, and I believe that these countries have the same right to preferential treatment as most of the ACP states. I think the dialogue should give more attention to that.

Political group: PSE