GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the other parliamentary groups for supporting our initiative of 8 August for an oral question, following a trip to Latin America to see the effects of the crisis and ascertain the expectations of the Latin-American countries with regard to the European Union. Secondly, I would like to welcome the compromise resolution in which the European Parliament will show – as I hope it will tomorrow – its unanimous support for a clearly determined direction established by the Commission and the Council. The question we are asking has three parts. The first is that, from the very positive experiences of the association treaties with Mexico and the treaty we have just signed with Chile, we believe that we need to speed up negotiations – Commissioner Patten was in Rio de Janeiro in July with Commissioner Lamy – for three basic reasons. First, because we need to consolidate the political and economic integration of Mercosur. Secondly, because this is an instrument for stability – we hope it will be – to give investors confidence, to be a factor in economic growth and also to help consolidate democracy in these countries. Thirdly, last but not least, because we are the main investor and the main commercial partner in this area, ahead of the United States. And it is appropriate that we should talk about commerce, the economy and subjects such as the International Criminal Court, the WTO, Kyoto, etc., in order to consolidate these alliances. The second aspect is that we can make progress on some of the proposals of a transitional nature we are currently putting forward, taking account of the need for aid in order to overcome the crisis – in particular, I am thinking of certain agri-fisheries aspects which can subsequently be consolidated. The third aspect is that we are facing a significant problem with regard to the representation of the European Union in international bodies, which, I admit, is difficult to solve. We need to address this in the Convention and consolidate our positions, but you will acknowledge that in the case of the Commission’s mission to Rio de Janeiro, Commissioner Patten was not in the same situation as Commissioner Lamy. Commissioner Lamy has commercial power, as he showed in our negotiations in the WTO. In the case of the International Monetary Fund, we found that, although we jointly have 30% of the vote, due to special rules for negotiating, the United States, with 17%, carries more weight than we do. We must find a solution to this which allows us, within the scope of Article 99 of the Treaties, to be represented as a whole and thus carry enough weight to reflect our responsibilities and size.

Political group: PSE
We Swedish Social Democrats are voting in favour of the proposal approved by the Conciliation Committee. This is not a stand for or against genetically modified products, but a way of regulating our current reality. We have a responsibility as politicians to ensure that this area is regulated. The result of not approving the new text is that we retain the old legislation, which has not kept up with new developments in the field of gene technology. We must trust that the Commission will present a clear proposal regarding traceability and labelling, as it has promised. Consumers must be able to choose whether or not to buy GMO products. We believe it is important to establish clear rules in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express the full support of the Group for the reports by Mr Marset and Mr Salafranca of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy, regarding the EU/Chile Association Agreement and the interregional agreement with Mercosur. In both cases, as the two rapporteurs point out in their respective explanatory statements, these new Association Agreements with Chile and Mercosur currently represent the highest priority of the Union’s external policy towards Latin America. The extent of the economic relations between the European Union and these countries, the need to strengthen the political role of the European Union as an autonomous and influential actor on the world stage to counter the preponderant influence of the United States, the concrete support given by the Union to all initiatives aiming at strengthening democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in South America means that we cannot go back on this move towards a new phase with regard to the transitional framework agreement that came into force in 1995 for Mercosur and 1999 for Chile. The European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, cannot confine itself to supplying a mere opinion; in the context of the forthcoming institutional reform, this House must gain a more incisive role by obtaining an explicit assent. So this is a significant moment, Mr President, a moment not to be wasted. As chair of the delegation for relations with South America and Mercosur, I must draw your attention to this, so that Europe and South America may continue their efforts to reach a solution, irrespective of the conclusions of the multilateral negotiations of the World Trade Organisation. Today, Europe still has within its reach the chance to build a privileged relationship with the Mercosur countries and Chile, a relationship ratifying a fresh start in our dealings with this land which, for so many reasons, is close to our own continent, a land in which we can still play a leading part. So we must give a new boost to these global Association Agreements, which must be concluded without wasting any more precious time, and which – it is extremely important to emphasise this – must not have just economic and commercial connotations, even though these are extremely important, but must include political and development cooperation aspects. These are the features which mark out what is different about Europe, our heritage, of which we are duly proud and which we cannot and must not abandon.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Commission was entrusted with the task of investigating the effectiveness of the European works council. The European works council has become more and more important: in 1994 there were 40, and in 2001 there are 650. In this respect, the European works council has promoted a European awareness outstandingly well and has furthered the interest of employees in transnational measures and in acts of solidarity in exactly the same way. However, there are problems; this we learnt during the hearing in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. It is totally unclear what is meant by appropriate information. How can employees cultivate alternative plans if they receive information far too late? For example, if a radical restructuring of the company is envisaged, an enhanced consultation procedure must be provided. Moreover, the European works councils usually meet once a year. At least two meetings a year, if not three, should take place. The European works councils must be able to get to know each other better. They must also understand the different mentalities. The former is the condition for promoting solidarity and ensuring sustained action, and as always women are seriously under-represented. Women do not even make up 10% of European works councils. A great deal of motivational work is needed within the companies in this regard, and this must be expressed practically in votes later on. I have spoken with many works councils – also within my constituency. It is particularly important for them that we offer more training opportunities to compensate for language difficulties. I expressly agree with Mr Menrad, who is in favour of language courses for EWC members. Investment in training of employees is also essential – and I am thinking here of accounting regulations, employment law, social law – and we must work towards being able to say: What shall be on the agenda? The protection of health, the necessity of dealing with safety at work or the issue which Mr Menrad is always pursuing: employee participation. The rapporteur succeeded in including 75 proposals from the Committee on Employment and other proposals from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Indeed, he knew how to build bridges with us in the Committee, and 38 out of 38 were in favour. May tomorrow’s vote be just as successful!

Political group: PPE-DE
The UK Conservatives voted against this motion for resolution since it repeats the errors of the Durban conference. We cannot support the undue emphasis on the Middle East, and are not convinced that it might not have been better had the conference failed to reach a conclusion. In many respects, the Durban conference belongs to an age that came to an end on 11 September.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo's geostrategic situation has always, in my view, caused it to be considered as a power with great potential on the African continent. Unfortunately, under the dictatorship of President Mobutu, the country has fallen into economic and political crisis. We should be aware that the GNP per inhabitant has decreased to one sixth of what it was twenty years ago. I believe this to be linked, among other things, to the disappearance of the official channels and administration, so that informal activities have acquired an importance that is unheard of elsewhere. While it has enormous potential in terms of agricultural, forestry and mining resources – on which subject I agree with my colleague – the paradox is that the Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the poorest countries in the world. This situation is, I believe, the result of bad management, including bad management of the economy and of the failing infrastructure, but also of the illegal exploitation of wealth. That is the important thing about the United Nations report. As mining resources are already largely diminished almost all over the world, and exhausted in several countries, those being exploited in the Congo are quite economically attractive, particularly due to the low costs involved in their sale. I think that we have a real responsibility in this respect. The United Nations report warns us about the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC by private European companies, which is particularly of concern to us, and by neighbouring countries, which also have responsibilities. In view of the Johannesburg Summit, the provisions laid down by the International Criminal Court and the Cotonou agreements, and in response to this scandal which I believe threatens the global ecosystem and to the reign of poaching and violations of human rights, I believe that the European Union should ask the UN Security Council to initiate proceedings against those who are implicated, particularly by freezing assets and conducting enquiries into pogroms and other acts of violence committed against the people. The Council and the Commission should also equip themselves with a restrictive legal framework and demand, in particular, greater transparency in the way that markets are allocated. On a more general note, I would like to say that, in this battle in which we are all engaged against physical attacks on people and for peace and sustainable development, the key notes must be the preservation of the environment, social justice and good governance.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr Prodi, I do not wish to speak about something you have decided on today, but rather on something that you have not decided today. It is the issue of the directive on temporary work agency workers, which has been under preparation for a long time already. I am disappointed because Parliament has been waiting since last summer for this proposal to come on the table, and I am a bit embarrassed because it seemed that it was almost finished and ready to be published, but last Monday's Financial Times has since published an article with a lot of press complaint against this proposal. It looks as if the Commission is giving in to such pressure and postponing the decision again, so I should like to ask you whether you really are impressed by these kind of press campaigns and when are you planning to issue the proposal? I think it is a proposal which fits in perfectly with the Barcelona summit and should be presented before that summit. May I remind you also that the Social Affairs Council of next week has already scheduled it on its agenda.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his very good report, parts of which are already finalised as no amendments have been tabled. Although this has been a rather low-key debate today, this report has been the subject of very intensive discussions among Members of this House in recent days and, indeed, in recent weeks, not only in the meeting rooms. It is obvious, after all, that a Commission communication on water management in developing countries will always trigger very heated and intensive debate. The previous speaker spoke in great depth about the sensitivity of water as an issue in every part of the world. The WTO Ministerial Conference, which is due to start within a matter of days in Cancún, naturally makes this debate even more topical; key issues in this context are, for example, the Commission’s demands for the liberalisation of public services – which of course includes water management – and the situation with regard to the developing countries’ freedom to decide for themselves in future how they supply these public services. When we talk about water management in developing countries, it is obvious to me that the Commission, and the European Union, should be promoting sustainable water management. One reason why I think Mr Lannoye’s report is so good is that he focuses very directly, and also very critically, on the problems and obstacles standing in the way of sustainable water management. He mentions intensive farming, which is predominantly export-driven, structural adjustment programmes imposed on countries in the past, which have weakened their public services, and he mentions the setting of wrong priorities in project funding. I think that this is a very good signal to send out, and there are also very positive approaches in the Commission’s current policies which aim to avoid these pitfalls in future. As my group’s shadow rapporteur, I am rather unhappy that we have not managed to achieve a unified position on Mr Lannoye’s Amendment No 5, which takes a very critical line on the GATS requirements, which are obviously in place, and the Commission’s calls for liberalisation. However, let me reassure the rapporteur right away that I am working hard to ensure that as many of my colleagues as possible support him in making this demand. He mentioned that he proposes to make a slight alteration to one amendment by Mr van den Berg. I would ask Mr van den Berg to tell us about this himself. I cannot do that here. I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteur once again for his good work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was involved in securing Denmark’s positive vote against the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. I shall adopt a position on the Treaty of Nice when I see the outcome of the negotiations, but there is a somewhat schizophrenic feel to the debates here. At one moment, we talk about bringing the European Union closer to the people, and the next moment we are in the throes of developing a European State, which is out of step with what the people want. In my view, the most important thing to do at the Nice Summit is to set a timetable for when and how the EU is to become ready for enlargement. We are focusing far too much on how prepared the applicant States are, and we all too often ignore the fact that, for example, the EU’s agricultural arrangements and Structural Funds are enormous obstacles to enlargement. A decision in Nice to the effect that, for example, the applicant States must have the opportunity to participate in the next elections to the European Parliament could help put the necessary pressure on the EU itself, so that enlargement can become a reality.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Gahrton has prepared a sound report on the countries of the South Caucasus. I entirely share his view that it is in the interests of Europe and the EU to associate the region more closely with Europe. There are positive signs but, as Mr Gahrton himself said, there are quite a few threatening clouds. In Azerbaijan, matters are heading in the wrong direction. A year ago, I met with the new, recently elected President, Ilham Aliev. In response to direct questions on electoral fraud that had by then already taken place, he flatly denied any such occurrences and referred to his own, and Azerbaijan’s, role in the Council of Europe. Following the autumn elections, we know Aliev’s game. Freedom of expression is crushed, and opponents are thrown into prison. If Azerbaijan is to become a genuine partner of the EU, the country must be fully democratised. A humanitarian disaster is taking place in the refugee camps, in which those driven out of Nagorno-Karabakh live in extreme poverty. I have myself visited a refugee camp, and I wish in particular to address Mr Patten and say that the EU has a big responsibility when it comes both to money and to putting pressure on the parties involved in the conflict. I think that Mr Gahrton’s report shows that we need a stronger EU in the international arena, especially if we are to be able to take vigorous action in the area immediately surrounding the EU.

Political group: ELDR
Despite the belittling of the results of the Stockholm Summit by most of the media, progress was made, responding to the objectives of the economic and financial groups that dominate the European economy, as the Commission’s proposal made very clear. The path has therefore already been mapped out. As in the story about the half-cup of water, some will see it as half full and some as half empty. The Lisbon strategy to speed up liberalisation, particularly through privatising transport, postal services, electricity, gas and telecommunications, was, despite everything, consolidated at the Stockholm Council. Furthermore, the process of integrating the financial markets was also speeded up. With regard to recovering ‘full employment’, this does not necessarily mean an increase in the number of quality jobs, particularly if this increase takes place at the expense of greater job insecurity. With regard to the so-called ‘modernisation of the European Social Model’, new attacks were made on the pensions system and changes to social security, with the method of open coordination in this area being started up and with this objective being included in the EU’s annual economic guidelines. It is worth highlighting, however, that the tiny echoes from the social part of the Lisbon strategy are due to the efforts of the workers and all progressives who want to see an economy that pays more attention to people’s problems and sustainable development. This is what I too hope for.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, whether the European institutions are modified at the Nice European Council or whether rivalries between national ruling circles thwart all attempts at institutional reform, the European Union will continue to be exclusively concerned with the interests of the dominant economic class, with large industrial and financial groups, with their business and their profits. Notwithstanding a few phrases, as pompous as they are empty, on democracy and on the interests of the people, the debate which is under way within these institutions bears no relation whatsoever to the interests of the working classes and the majority of the population. We will certainly not be taking part in the bickering between the mouthpieces of the three or four major powers competing for domination of the European Union. It is of little consequence to us whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights is incorporated into the Treaty on European Union or not, because, in any case, this Charter, allegedly a Charter of Fundamental Rights, not only refuses to include the elementary rights of workers, it actually clears the way for retrograde social measures. Instead of raising human and social rights to a higher level, the Charter will make it easier to bring them down. As a result, while abstaining on the details, we have voted against the whole.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I agree with the comments made by Mr Martinez and I should like to take advantage of the debate about Cuba to raise a matter again and ask the Commissioner if the European Commission or the European Union in general intends to intervene, at long last, in order to put a stop to the embargo which the USA has imposed on Cuba for over forty years, an embargo which has caused and continues to cause immense damage to Cuba and its people. Please do not tell us that this has something to do with respect for human rights because we know that, if there is anyone who cannot talk about respect for human rights, it is the Americans themselves who, apart from what they are doing throughout the entire world, Iraq being a typical example, are also trampling over human rights in their own country with daily executions and keeping the five patriots whose only crime was to uncover terrorist action against Cuba and its leaders organised by the USA in unacceptable conditions. I therefore request an answer so that this saga can stop in which, more importantly, the European Union appears to assent to this sort of .... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: GUE-NGL