GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I believe that the Union, as a political entity, must give effective and universal joint commitments on issues as serious as Iraq, which we all hope will be resolved as soon as possible, especially when, despite the capture of Saddam Hussein, we face the near certainty of daily carnage and a drawn-out conflict, in addition to an extremely serious political problem of territorial, ethnic, religious and social integration that cannot be resolved simply by placing on the table naïve demonstrations of goodwill. Apart from the positive measures that the European Union has adopted, will the Council speak with a single voice in the quest for peace and solidarity in its talks with the UN, the United States, and with the states in the region? Or will the Union remain paralysed, as it is today, in the face of this tragedy? To conclude, does the President-in-Office of the Council really believe that all resistance in Iraq is simply terrorist activity, as he has just stated?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Again today the hypocritical ‘defenders’ of human rights and the oppressed are silent. Apart from hollow proclamations, not a word of support for the Palestinian people fighting for human dignity for the whole of mankind in the face of imperialist brutality. They reject proposals to end the funding and arming of the butcher Sharon. They prohibit any pressure on Israel to end the occupation and its attacks, which are the sole cause of the hardships of the two peoples. Solana, as his master's voice, condemns the Palestinian resistance, while calling on Israel to show restraint and generosity. He also cites the famous road map which was signed by the Palestinian Authority with a gun to its head and which is being trampled underfoot by Israel, to exert more pressure and coercion on the Palestinians to make new concessions, basically to start a Palestinian civil war. Not a word about the satanically inspired wall designed to choke Palestine or about the criminal settlements and the cynical threats against the elected President Arafat. We denounce this policy, we express our undivided support for the Palestinian resistance and President Arafat. We stand by the Israeli communists and all those in this country who, like the 27 pilots and hundreds of Israeli soldiers and officers, are fighting to stop Sharon's cannibalistic machine. We call here too for a front of solidarity for peace in the Middle East and for reconciliation between the two peoples in two independent, sovereign states.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to speak principally on the report by Mr Cunha. As regards the other reports, I want to mention only the question of intervention in rye, which the Commission proposes should be done away with and not replaced. I therefore support the proposal on intervention in the form in which we modified it in the Souchet report in the Committee. There must continue in future to be the possibility of compensation for certain specified sites, the natural characteristics of which allow only a limited number of economic alternatives. Let me turn, though, to the Cunha report, which I wholeheartedly endorse. It incorporates elements that we social democrats have repeatedly called for, such as the requirement for both modulation and cross-compliance, as well as aspects related to the protection of animals. The preamble inserted before Article 1 reflects this House’s priorities: a secure income for farmers along with support for environmental protection and employment in rural areas. What I see as important in this is that Parliament is strongly advocating that a start be made on decoupling aid from production; in the text voted on by the Committee, though, this affirmation is still very muted and vague. This, in my view, is where we have to choose a form of words that clarifies what we are calling for. It is for this reason that the Group of the has tabled amendments providing for decoupling to start, in 2005, at 50% and, following the presentation of a report from the Commission in 2007, for it to rise progressively and be extended to other sectors. This is especially important, as, in the compromise motions, we have agreed on the partial decoupling of only two sectors. Much as we should, certainly, welcome this introduction of decoupling, we should not lose sight of the longer-term perspective. So I hope that the Group of the ’ Amendments Nos 126 and 127 will be endorsed, as these amendments will enable Parliament to send the Council a more emphatic message. Let me conclude by addressing yet another important aspect, that of renewable raw materials. These offer farmers in many regions great potential for viable alternative crops while, at the same time, having a positive effect on the environment. The possibility that our amendment – in contrast to the Commission proposal – will continue to enable set aside areas to be used for cultivating renewable raw materials is one that I very much welcome. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the original version of this amendment is the German version; the Spanish version is inaccurate. I merely wanted to point out, once again, that we are voting on the German version; the problem arises in the second part, where reference is made to the shareholders' meeting and the supervisory board. The Spanish version says 'or the administrative board'. That is a completely different body. (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0370/2000) by Mr Zimmerling, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art [7484/1/00 – C5-0422/2000 – 1996/0085(COD)] Before the vote:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while we are on the subject of freedom of speech, let me say just one thing, which is that this has been an open process, one in which every detail of the Convention was public, for everyone to read, examine, discuss and add their own contributions. The process involved everyone who was entitled to participate, ranging from the national parliaments to the Council, Parliament and the Commission. That is something that Mr Martin should not denigrate, even if it does not fit into his present programme and that of the Kronen-Zeitung! I would like, with your permission, to make a few comments. The first is that we have completed the project of the century, the reunification of the whole of Europe. Over the past few days, we have heard a lot of fine speeches about that. I hope that these will prove to be more than lofty sentiments, and that we will instead put them into practice. What that means is that we have to enable the enlarged Europe to function and confer legitimacy upon it, and that is why the Constitution is so important. If you are in favour of reunification, then you have to be in favour of this Constitution, for it is democratic and is founded upon values to be found in the preamble and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights – values that I regard as being, to a large extent, of Christian origin. The European Union has to be able to function. A larger Union is of no use if its decision-making structures do not make it effective. Having listened to all the lofty sentiments that have been expressed, we have to acknowledge that no longer can any of us, in the present world, defend our interests on our own – that, after all, is why Europe is united. No longer can anyone defend interests that are exclusively national. The fact is that it is better that we should put our national interests on the back burner when we have a common denominator, for it is this common denominator that will enable us to develop the strength to defend our national interests as well. Now it is only through Europe that national interests can be defended, and if this is made apparent in practical action and in the way this constitution develops, then we really will make progress. I would just like to express my gratitude to the Irish Presidency of the Council for its astute leadership, even though we will have to discuss those details in the final document where we in this House cannot agree to what is proposed. I do hope, though, that we will nevertheless be able to achieve a good result.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on 13 December last year an appalling and vicious attack occurred on the parliament of the Indian Union in Delhi, which is their most visible symbol of democracy and secular nationhood. Let us not underestimate the danger this posed as, had it succeeded in killing the assembled government ministers and opposition leaders, it could have heralded a war between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers with massive conventional land forces as well – although India has at least declared a policy of no first use of its nuclear arsenal, unlike Pakistan. The responsibility was soon traced to militant Islamic terrorist groups based in Pakistan, with full support and training from the Pakistani government, and also responsible for the earlier attacks in Srinagar against the Kashmiri State Assembly. This is in clear violation of Security Council Resolution 1373 forbidding states from sponsoring terrorism against other states. Nevertheless, I welcome President Musharraf's change of heart in backing the United States in their war on terrorism which toppled the Taliban regime and destroyed the al-Qa'ida network in Afghanistan, even though this regime was largely a creation of Pakistan's interservice intelligence agency; in particular, his speech of 13 January promising reforms of the madrassas, or religious schools, which fomented so much hatred of the west and bred an atmosphere conducive to the massacre of Christians peacefully at worship last year. This is a promising start, but Pakistan has yet to accede to the request to extradite the 20 ringleaders of the plot. There are deep concerns that the kidnapping of Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl may have involved renegade pro-Taliban members of the Pakistani security forces. There is now also some evidence from e-mails that the controller of the shoe-bomber Richard Reid, from my country alas, may have been based in Pakistan. I call, therefore, on Pakistan to ratify the SAARC and all UN conventions on terrorism and I congratulate India on its restraint in the face of provocation and on its joint declaration with the EU in November last year against terrorism. During the Afghan war in the 1980s we in the west supported Islamic militant ideology in order to oppose the spread of communism. America, alas, paid the price on 11 September. Will the west again repeat this mistake?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I expect your morning could have been more pleasant. What is more, you have the task of representing the Commission and your colleagues who are directly responsible for the matter, who have delegated this task to you. However, that is part of the job! I am not going to talk about the content, for my fellow Members have already amply expressed what are my views too. I have familiarised myself with the most recent Commission document, a concise text which was produced a few days ago. It points out, in particular, that the first general document on the subject produced by the Commission dates back to 1996. Six years on, the Commission has announced a Green Paper. I do not feel that this is a responsible way to behave. You have timetabling problems which have already been pointed out by many people: you have problems scheduling your work to fit in with the Convention, you have scheduling problems with regard to the implementation of sectoral directives and you certainly have scheduling problems – as Mrs Ainardi mentioned – where enlargement is concerned. In any case, I believe that there is no point, ladies and gentlemen, in continuing to ask the Commission to produce documents. I am being mildly provocative in saying this: the Commission is divided. There is clearly no political leadership, which is disturbing considering that the Commission has sole right of initiative. I feel that we Members of Parliament must now shoulder our responsibilities within the Convention. A number of contributions have already been submitted on the subject of services of general interest and the reconciliation thereof with competition law. In its first contribution to the Convention, in May, the Commission itself pointed out how important it is that we have legal bases for services of general interest. Page 6 of the document even states that, without this, any changes will actually be to the detriment of the European model of society and the values recognised by the European democracies. The Commission is therefore both aware of the problem and incapable of taking political decisions. We who are members of the Convention or Members of the European Parliament must turn to our national governments and, within the Convention, we must fight to ensure that the future European Constitution genuinely contains legal provisions providing a framework for competition law.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Queen of the Councils of Ministers, the Ecofin, has come tumbling off her pedestal with a loud thud. In the Brussels glasshouse, this debate about the finer details of the Stability Pact is still going on, whilst normal citizens, at least in my country, the Netherlands, have for a long time been debating something else. Why do the rules we agree on apply to some countries and not to others? What about the rules we will agree on in the new constitutional treaty, on which all Dutch people are allowed to vote in a referendum? In order to gain any credibility, this constitutional treaty will need to contain tough procedures to enforce monetary rules. I am in favour of a much stronger role for the Commission. Countries that are themselves in breach of the rules should be excluded from voting on the assessment of other countries that infringe the same rules. The French and German Governments have opened Pandora's box. This may well serve a short-term interest, but they have lost all credibility as the axis of European cooperation. As such, they carry a heavy responsibility.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I do not underestimate the very important ambition of establishing a community of humanitarian values or the fact that civil, political and social rights have been placed on a par for the first time in this type of text. I also see the method instigated with the Convention as innovatory with regard to ensuring greater information and greater transparency. Despite all that, however, there is a major source of dissatisfaction. There is a significant gap between our initial ambitions and what we have actually achieved. It is, of course, possible to highlight this or that article, to welcome the genuine progress made in affirming a number of new rights relating to developments in our societies or in reaffirming crucial fundamental rights. It is also possible to pinpoint articles which fall a long way short of the rights acknowledged elsewhere, particular in social issues. We should not be drawing up lists of advantages and disadvantages, Madam President. Last time, you spoke of the glass being half full or half empty. We should instead be looking at the Charter in terms of its overall approach and ambition and asking ourselves whether it actually lives up to the demands and expectations of the citizens of Europe and whether it provides them with adequate support to confront the challenges of the age. Well, I have read the text. I have read it again and again. It is, indeed, a text that is easy to read. I have heard the arguments put forward by my fellow Members, but I still think that the Charter contains some ambiguous provisions that are very dangerous and that the common denominator is still the lowest possible one. Finally, in spite of the innovative approach of the Convention method, which I have mentioned, things must be stated openly. The citizens of Europe have continued to be insufficiently informed and if they had been consulted, as should have been necessary, in order to contribute towards drawing up the Charter, then its content would almost certainly have been rather different. It is never too late to set things right. Nice should not be just the finish line for the Charter, an opportunity to express self-satisfaction. It would be wise to also make it the starting point for the widest possible “citizens’ debate” regarding this so important issue of fundamental rights. Finally, precisely because the decision on the Charter is a major political decision, I am with those Members of the House that think it premature for Parliament to declare its opinion today.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, first of all, the Council seems to argue that it has no competence in the field of the individual rights. Is the Council therefore incompetent? I would like an answer. Furthermore, will the Presidency accept that Member States have a duty to condemn such discrimination because they are signatories to the employment framework directive which prohibits discrimination including on the grounds of sexuality and which must be transposed by 2003? Finally, will the Presidency act on a point of principle and condemn such discrimination generally – discrimination which blights the souls of those who practice it as well as those who condone it either by their silence or by their inaction?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party warmly welcomes the plan crafted by Kofi Annan yesterday in Switzerland. I congratulate Commissioner Verheugen and his team because they have played a key part in brokering the package. It is right and proper that the Commission and the Council have been proactive in seeking to apply the membership terms across the complete island of Cyprus. It is not too late for this Parliament to become more supportive of a settlement of the dispute than it has been in the past. I would like to ask all the political forces represented in this Parliament to campaign for a positive vote in the referendum. Many Cypriots require support to catch the spirit of Europe and to look forward with more self-assurance to being a reunited community. Turkey deserves our thanks for making such a vital contribution to the settlement. These events and our gratitude are not fully reflected in the Oostlander report, but it will certainly inform Parliament's decision, as we move towards December and the critical decision to open accession negotiations. Rightly we are resisting the pre-emption of that decision today. Many things will change between now and December: inside the Union we will have reached an IGC settlement that will fully prepare us for further accessions; in Turkey the AKP administration will have consolidated its legitimacy and a new reform package will have progressed through Parliament; social and economic circumstances will have improved and advances will hopefully have been made in the practical implementation of reforms; and Turkey will have continued improving its relations with its neighbours. The quiet Turkish revolution will persist, and we in the Liberal family will see the bigger picture and treat Turkey fairly and recognise what a contribution Turkey can make to the future of Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we live at a vital juncture of European and international affairs. My delegation strongly supports the enlargement process although as part of the institutional reform process designed to bring about our declared goal of a wider, looser Europe and an unwinding of the CAP and CFP. We also believe that the central eastern European countries, having thrown off the mantle of Soviet-dominated communism from which we in the West were unable to protect them, and for which we can help to atone by welcoming them back into the family of European nations, do not simply wish to see the construction of another Brussels-led superstate. We also welcome the rapprochement between NATO and Russia which now shares a common agenda with the EU in the fight against global terrorism and the goal of becoming a functioning market economy as a member of WTO and at peace with its EU neighbours. We strongly support a responsible attitude towards our environment. However, we do have a number of problems with the resolution, ranging from our opposition to the Treaty of Nice as a prerequisite of enlargement to rejection of a common asylum and immigration policy, which we believe is a prerogative of the Member States, although we strongly favour bilateral cooperation designed to safeguard the integrity of our borders. We remain deeply sceptical that joint Euro-border guards would work in practice and oppose the principle of the European security and defence policy both as a duplication and as a means of de-coupling Europe from our US partners in NATO. We also believe there is a danger that the International Criminal Court will be used to make political mischief by parties hostile to our American allies. However, we welcome calls for restraint and de-escalation between India and Pakistan over disputed Kashmir and note encouraging signs that President Musharraf has finally heeded calls to reign in Islamic terrorists which his regime has until very recently supported, terrorists who have recently committed atrocities against Jamu and Kashmiri civilians and even the Indian parliament. He should arrest and hand over those committing such acts to India for trial and justice. Nevertheless we all wish the summiteers in Seville every success in the challenges that lie ahead.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the report drafted by my colleague, Mr Ceyhun, is a very important one, and we, too, have heard that the Council has some new plans with regard to these matters. I support Mr Ceyhun’s proposal, and I would be very grateful if the Council could clarify whether it really intends to put forward a new proposal with regard to this issue.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the way today’s debate has been organised would be laughable if it were not such an expensive business. First it was delayed, then, with us all here, it was delayed for another hour without any explanation being given, and the interpreters will be along later. This is where I agree entirely with Mr Linkohr, who spoke before me, that one learns things as one gets older. I may well not have had much to say in favour of Friedrich von Hayek in my books and other works, but what I see in this place from one day to another is such a waste of money – not yours, not Parliament’s, but the taxpayer’s – that I have come to think of the whole thing as a hypocritical farce. By way of contrast, I would like to know whether we would organise debates in their current form if it were your money! That also means – and this brings me to what I wanted to talk about – that I was originally only meant to have one minute, but, the way things are organised, I still have one, so please do not regard this minute as taking us off the subject. Now for my minute on space travel. Are we not falling into the very trap of saying that if something makes sense in principle – be it this House or the peaceful use of space travel – then it actually works? It does not actually work out like that. If we look at the report, at the second part of item 17, and at item 18, then what is this dual use? How are the two kept separate? Where can I, as a citizen, know what I am now actually getting in return for my tax, and where I am getting it? Do we not notice that, without military support, we might not get many of the things that would make sense in civilian terms? How, then, are the two to be kept apart? Is this not where we ourselves are being sucked into a new kind of military-industrial complex? Are we in this House not the very people who are up in arms when a populist like Haider or Schwarzenegger suddenly wins elections? What we urgently need, I believe, is transparency – in space travel and here in this House. Thank you for allowing me the chance to speak for two minutes.

Political group: PSE