GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I support the idea of helping victims of human trafficking. However, this is not at all what this directive is about. It simply forces victims to co-operate with police authorities by means of the threat of expulsion. Instead, comprehensive victim protection must ensure a permanent residence permit, thus granting full access to medical and social support without preconditions. A clear distinction must be made between 'trafficking in human beings' and the smuggling of migrants. Trafficking simply means helping immigrants to illegally enter Fortress Europe – for profit or as a benevolent activity. Trafficking is based on a decision to migrate, but it often ends in exceptionally exploitative capitalist conditions of work later. 'Illegal immigration' is nothing more than the understandable reaction to EU-efforts to fence itself off from migratory flows resulting from global poverty, war and capitalist exploitation. 'Illegal immigration' is usually the only way to reach EU-territory at all. If you really want to help victims of trafficking and exploitation, you should not hide behind the interests of European law enforcement authorities and fob victims off with short-term residence permits. Instead, free access to the EU must be part of a free world so that people can move freely. - Report: MacCormick (A5-0109/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I want to make a point on the European Council in Ghent. It is a suggestion from the Group, the and the s on paragraph 7, where we each have tabled an amendment, Amendments Nos 13, 9 and 5 respectively. The suggestion is an oral amendment to merge all of them to add at the end of paragraph 7: 'which adequately represents women, respects their human rights and ensures that Afghan women participate fully in building such a future'.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the international political climate is stormy, to say the least. To misquote Tolstoy, it is no exaggeration to say that what we face is no more and no less than the dilemma of war or peace. In other words what some people see as the dilemma, that is, should Saddam Hussein stay or go, is beside the point. We are basically in the aftermath of a crisis which started back in 1979 with the Iran-Iraq war, continued with Kuwait, and is still going on today. Former allies are now adversaries and former adversaries are now allies. And what are we doing about it? As the European Union, we need to act on one principle and one political commitment. The principle being that every decision must be passed by the UN Security Council and the political commitment being that we must all stand united at the UN. Last Monday, the General Affairs Council started by defining the capabilities of the European Union; let us hope that these capabilities finally translate into policy. We often say, when discussing Euro-American affairs, that the Americans are our allies. Yes, they are and, as such, we supported and helped them in Afghanistan. But every American policy does not automatically have to become European policy. Let me ask you one simple question. Was Clinton’s policy on the Middle East, on Iraq and other countries, the same as Bush’s policy? No. Therefore, the political autonomy of the European Union and the principles which underpin it must always be the cornerstone of mutual respect between America and Europe. We need to answer a number of questions about crisis management. You remember what we said about the crisis in the Middle East? And nobody listened to us. There is the issue of democracy in the Gulf, in Iraq and elsewhere, but this is not the time to go into that. What I would say, however, is that the democratic changes in central and eastern Europe, where we have found new partners, did not come about by taking sides and engaging in conflicts. They came about by backing off and improving relations and by paving the way for these countries and nations to move towards democracy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have requested the floor as a result of personal comments in accordance with Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure. I wanted to refer to the comment made by Mr Wijkman with regard to the votes by means of which the Committee on Development and Cooperation’s proposal was approved, which were 26 in favour and 2 abstentions. Mr Wijkman has not questioned these results, but has referred to the opinion in the corridors probably being different. I would like to say, Mr President, that I have the greatest respect for everybody’s opinions, but that in a democracy it is votes that count. With regard to the Commissioner, who has also referred to this humble Member of Parliament and who has said that he has heard no argument to convince him of the need for two regulations, I would like to say to Mr Patten – who is a good friend of mine – that I believe that he has not properly understood the position here. I believe it is not the Commission who has to be convinced of the validity of the arguments, but Parliament, because, Commissioner, I would remind you that it is the Commission that answers politically to this Parliament, and not Parliament to the Commission, and that we are involved in a codecision procedure in which it is assumed that Parliament has something to say.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, this is the second reading of the public health programme and it is important that the European Parliament re-address a number of issues which it considers to be of fundamental importance. To start with, we feel that the European Commission really must make suitable structural arrangements, within a year of the date on which the programme starts, for a mechanism which guarantees permanent monitoring and coordination, boosts efficiency and supplies the Member States with information on best practices and an overall evaluation of the programme. This will provide an opportunity to readjust national policies along the right lines. Following recent events and their impact on health, we need to extend action in order to deal with unforeseen threats and new circumstances. As far as the budget is concerned, I shall not mince my words because, if we really want to respond to the needs and objectives of the programme in question, we need to provide the resources required in order to implement it. Given that current programmes have been extended as a result of the delay in approving this programme, at the expense of the present budget, the sum of EUR 280 million proposed by the Council is already too little and is incompatible with the successful application of the programme. I know the budget has limited room for manoeuvre, but I think that, on such serious issues, which directly affect our citizens, the Union needs to make its priorities clear and find suitable solutions. So I ask the Council to reconsider its position, accept the relevant amendments approved by the parliamentary committee and allow for a budget of EUR 380 million. Finally, I think it is important that the exact objective of the programme under discussion be made clear. Amendment No 23, which is referred to in Article 2, reinstates questions such as a holistic approach to health, highlighting mental health and well-being, and the importance of preventing and combating morbidity or premature mortality and reducing inequalities in health matters. I should like to finish by congratulating the rapporteur on his effort to reconcile opposing views and ensure that the procedure for approving the programme will be completed shortly.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this report makes it possible for the European Parliament to debate the ASEM process and comment on its results. This new partnership between Europe and Asia gives both sides a golden opportunity to deepen and strengthen relations, in respect not only of the economy, but also political, social and cultural matters. As early as the third ASEM Summit in Seoul political aspects such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law were successfully promoted from being the subject of a fruitful dialogue between the partners in the ASEM process to prompting relevant undertakings from leading ASEM politicians. It will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that our Parliament, which has made these values the focus of its work for years, attaches quite particular importance to these same values being respected by the Council and the Commission and to the Council and the Commission doing all they can to make these values part and parcel of the ongoing political dialogue with our Asian partners in the ASEM process. At a time when the European Union is almost talking about nothing else but enlargement, it is, I believe, very appropriate to say that this ASEM process and the circle of partners within it should also be extended to include states like India, which might also be deemed to have earned a place in this dialogue. I should like to address two points which, in my view, have wrongly become the subject of talks with and occasional protests on the part of the Chinese Embassy. Our requiring Taiwan's politicians to have visas for private visits to Europe does not amount to recognition of the Republic of Taiwan or in fact anything at all; it is the pursuance of a consistent policy which Europe has on the freedom of movement of people, consistent in particular if in the future Taiwan were also to follow in China's footsteps and become a member of the World Trade Organisation. Finally, Commissioner, I should like to draw your attention to an old demand of the European Parliament: we have always said that with a region such as Taiwan, with which we in Europe have very intensive economic relations, our relations are such as to warrant a representation, that is an information office, being set up there.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, work on the Bösch report was obviously overshadowed by the Eurostat affair. In its efforts to shed light on the Eurostat affair – its secret bank accounts, mis-management and nepotism – the Committee on Budgetary Control also uncovered significant shortcomings within OLAF. In this case, OLAF’s main failing was to work too slowly. In so doing it missed the opportunity to recover a considerable proportion of the at least EUR 8 million that had been embezzled. I believe, however, that the report adequately reflects the various criticisms of OLAF’s work. One thing must surely be clear to all of us, and it is clear: the real guilty party in this more than dramatic case of fraud is not OLAF but the Commission. They hushed it up and issued denials for so long that they had no choice but to continue doing so. And the Commissioners responsible, including the President of the Commission, are still refusing to accept the political, as well as the actual, responsibility for this embezzlement. On top of this, the Commission tabled its report – this Article 15 report – more than one year late. That is not very respectful of the law either, Commissioner. In our view, Eurostat showed above all how necessary it is to have an anti-fraud office, if the Prodian zero tolerance of fraud is not to mutate into full tolerance of fraud. We want an independent OLAF and we continue to need a strong OLAF Supervisory Committee, made up of external experts. An independent OLAF is still far from being a reality, because unfortunately the Commission repeatedly manages to exert influence because of its links to OLAF in terms of organisation and staffing. The Commission’s attempt to take internal investigations away from OLAF, which only recently came to light, is a perfect example. Commissioner, that was not a rumour, as you have just claimed; a meeting really did take place. If your top officials did not inform you of it then I can give you sight of the minutes of that meeting. The Commission has an inexhaustible wealth of ideas in this respect, with which it now even appears to want to honour the OLAF Supervisory Committee. So far it has tended to be seen as a nuisance, but now, so we hear from the Commission, representatives of the Commission, Parliament and the Council are to be involved to make it more democratic. This would, however, only serve to undermine OLAF’s independence further and we will certainly not be accompanying you down this precarious route, Commissioner. OLAF’s work will also continue to be difficult. We are aware of this. That is why, alongside strong, unswayable managers, we also need clear framework conditions. There is still a long way to go before we have a European financial prosecution service, but I hope that there will be no turning back. I am not able to support most of the amendments tabled by the Liberals and , with two exceptions, but we can go along with most of the ’s amendments and I would ask for your support for our ten amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, my group is broadly in favour of enlargement, because we see it as an historic opportunity to bring together the peoples of Europe, to consolidate peace on the continent and to transform this Union of 25 Member States – and in future 27 or 30 States – into the new global player that all those who oppose the excessive liberalism and unilateralism of American leaders would dearly love to see. In this respect, I do not feel that it is very wise to conceal the problems. I shall therefore say this openly and honestly; the decisions of the Brussels European Council have left us unsatisfied. Of course, we welcome the fact that the list of the ten proposed members has been approved, but, in our view, the terms of the agreement reached between the Fifteen on the budgetary and financial issues for the 2004-2006 period do not augur well in terms of the ability, if not the will of the key European leaders to make a reality of a vision of Europe that lives up to the aspirations that I have just outlined. We have already seen discrimination in the way that direct aid has been allocated to the farmers of the candidate countries. I was recently able to witness the extremely negative political effect of this measure in some of the countries concerned. In addition to this, the total amount of funding set aside by the Commission for structural actions has been reduced. We feel that this amount was already far from sufficient given the considerable work that needs to be done to combat disparities in development in the future, enlarged Union. It is in the interest of everyone to make a lasting success of enlargement, but the cost that this will certainly entail cannot be, as is the case at the moment, according to current plans, around 0.08% of the fifteen Member States’ GDP for each of the first three years. The medium-term objective must be very ambitious: to provide job security and training for all men and women throughout the whole of the enlarged Europe, to consolidate public services that are worthy of the name, to achieve genuinely sustainable development in all 25 Member States, and as a result combat social and fiscal dumping. We must also redefine the tasks and powers of the European Central Bank and do away with the obsessive rationing of worthwhile public expenditure, which will require a rapid and in-depth revision of the financial perspectives. All these issues must be laid on the table and debated openly, involving the national parliaments and social players. At this very moment in Florence, the European Social Forum is setting an example by bringing together citizens and young people in particular from across the continent to discuss the challenges of society and civilisation that we are all facing. If we make a success of enlargement, we will also meet their expectations. I fear that, with the Brussels European Council, we are falling far short of them.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is of course a Commission statement, but on a very important issue, an issue with political implications. It concerns relations between the European Union and the United States, where a legislative solution is required, as Commissioner Patten said, and where the Council needs to be involved in any such legislative solution. Do you not think that the Council should be present at this issue and should be able to express an opinion, if it so wishes?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on 15 November 2001 I was rapporteur for the report on Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 on the conversion of boats and fishermen dependent on the fisheries agreement with Morocco. On that occasion, Parliament agreed a series of amendments that seem to be very similar to the proposal before us today. They sought to make the regulation more flexible and to convert this particular Community fleet. As I am sure the Commissioner is aware, the fleet is based in Andalusia, the Canary Islands, Galicia and Portugal, It was left without their traditional fishing-ground. The Council adopted this Regulation accepting, though only to a limited extent, some of Parliament’s amendments. In due course, the weaknesses of the text adopted became clear. As we had anticipated, it proved too rigid. It did not allow a significant part of the sector concerned to access the aid for conversion. The Committee on Fisheries has visited Galicia and Andalusia over the last two years. It noted that the non-renewal of the agreement seriously affected 400 boats, 4 300 fishermen and whole regions of Galicia and Andalusia. A large number of associated industries were brought to a virtual standstill. Last December, EUR 30 million was allocated to those affected by the Prestige disaster. The allocation of this money made it clear that it was not possible to spend it and that this regulation was inadequate. The draft resolution tabled by the Committee on Fisheries rightly calls on the Commission to put forward an amendment to improve this regulation and make it sufficiently flexible. We call on the Commission to present a proposal to amend the present regulation as a matter of urgency. We need this to solve the problems we are currently encountering in applying the regulation to fishermen. Above all, aid should not be linked to shipowners’ decisions. The Commission told us a few weeks ago that it could not propose amendments to the regulation because the Spanish authorities had not submitted the required information to the Commission. When she met with the Committee on Fisheries, the Director-General of Fisheries of the Andalusian Regional Government told us that the Spanish authorities had not submitted the necessary information on the proportion of fishermen from this region who had received benefits during the six months’ ban to the Regional Government. The authorities in Andalusia did not therefore even know exactly how many fishermen were entitled to aid. Consequently, they had to establish six offices in the most affected ports to provide information on this aid. This entailed employing 12 people, an investment of EUR 721 000 from their own funds and the provision of a free telephone service. Commissioner, in Andalusia alone, fishermen have made 800 visits and 1 500 enquires. We are not asking for more money. We are asking for a better regulation so that the money allocated can be used efficiently for the purpose for which it was intended.

Political group: PSE