GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue that we are discussing in connection with this agreement between the European Community and Israel is more than just a technical one. It is not just about the legal arguments that have been exchanged with the authors of the four questions during this debate; what is really important is the political issue of whether we wish to promote peace at this point or not. It goes without saying that the occupation of the occupied territories since 1967 is illegal – that is the position of the United Nations. Resolution No 242 says that Israel should withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. This debate has now been going on for over 30 years. During that time, settlements have been built, and the signing of the Oslo Peace Accord has brought the two sides closer together. So the question now is this: what will most assist the peace process? For example, would immediate withdrawal from the occupied territories really serve the cause of peace? Everyone – including the European Union and the United States – now knows that we need to include steps towards that peace in the road map. Simple withdrawal tomorrow would not serve the peace process and would lead to fresh conflicts. Any signal that we as the European Union give at this point is crucial. We need to remember this: the agreement was concluded in 1975, the Oslo Peace Accord was signed in 1993, and from that moment on the European Union has supported the independence of the Palestinian Autonomy Authority, it has given it over EUR 2 billion and has done very good work. In Oslo both partners agreed that both areas, the different zones, including the Autonomy Authority, were parties to trade with the European Union. So regardless of whether the settlement policy is right or wrong, the area in which the settlements are located is an EU partner, either through the agreement with the Palestinian Autonomy Authority or through the EC-Israel Association Agreement. The comments made by the honourable Member from the political left who spoke first are therefore spurious. No one on the Palestinian side is exploited through the Association Agreement. Quite the opposite: if we were to suspend it overnight, the Palestinians who work there would be the first to suffer again. It is not just settlers who manufacture products there; a good many Palestinian jobs also depend on it. I think that the Commission's position is very well balanced in making it clear to Israel that this does not imply any recognition of the occupied territories, but that solutions still need to be found, so that an agreement of this kind is made to work and so that we do not pour oil on the fire again. I welcome the fact that Israel is once again handing over to the Palestinians the tax and customs due to them, and we in the European Union should not give the wrong signal and suspend the agreement as some people have suggested. That would certainly not help the peace process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is precisely because Serbia has chosen the democratic path that there is reason for the European Parliament to remind everyone of two fundamental requirements that are made of any democratic state governed by law, namely that political freedom must prevail – one must not be able to be imprisoned for one’s political views or for the ethnic group to which one belongs – and that persons suspected of crimes – whether political leaders or common villains – must be put on trial so that their guilt and responsibility can be examined. Consequently, all political prisoners in Serbia must be freed. The injustices committed by Milosevic must now come to an end. It is worth repeating that we make the same requirements of the political leaders in Kosovo. The persecution of minorities can never be justified. The new political leadership in Serbia must act in such a way, and I would like to point this out, Mr President, so that the former president and dictator Milosevic, together with his partners in crime, can be brought before the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague. It is there that Milosevic belongs and not at party conferences in Belgrade.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on the excellent results that she has achieved and to begin by placing this report in the broader context of climate change. Since the Rio de Janeiro Conference and then Kyoto, the European Union has always led the political side of the debate on climate change. Nevertheless, although Europe continues to lead the debate in terms of rhetoric, it is beginning to lose the legitimacy to do so in a credible way. It is rather pointless for the European Union to try to alarm the whole world with this problem when, in reality, the European greenhouse gas bubble, in particular the carbon dioxide bubble, is more likely to increase by 6% to 8% than to decrease by the 8% that we agreed in Kyoto. It is therefore time to take internal action in order to lend credibility to our external efforts. In terms of political action, the transport sector must be our priority for the following two fundamental reasons. Firstly, because, according to the Green Paper published by the European Commission, this sector will not be part of the European trading system for carbon dioxide emissions, and all greenhouse gas reductions will therefore have to be achieved exclusively through national and Community policies and measures. Secondly, because transport is the sector that is contributing most to Europe’s falling short of the levels set in Kyoto. According to a study recently published by the European Environment Agency, transport is responsible for almost 30% of the European Union’s total emissions, and it predicts that the level of carbon dioxide emissions generated by this sector will increase by 39% of the 1990 level by 2010. Given this extremely disturbing picture, which shows that road transport is responsible for 85% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the transport sector, and given the overwhelming need for action, the agreement reached in the Conciliation Committee on this system for monitoring CO2 emissions from light passenger vehicles is to be welcomed. This system is a crucial aspect in the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and will ensure rigorous control of the voluntary commitment made by the car industry to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in new passenger vehicles by 25%. I regret the fact that it has not been possible to include light commercial vehicles in this system. In any event, I congratulate Mrs González Álvarez once again on the results she has achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, considering that a Pensioners’ Party – called DeSUS – already exists in Slovenia and is part of that country’s coalition government, I hope that it will be able to send a representative to Parliament so that the pensioners not just of Slovenia but of all the states of the new Europe which emerge from the 2004 European Parliament elections, will have a huge number of representatives from the Pensioners’ Parties of all these states, including Slovenia, upholding the rights of the elderly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, after the voting, I would like to raise a point of order concerning the texts adopted yesterday. If you would allow me, I would like to take up a few minutes after the votes.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wholeheartedly support measures to allow public access to environmental information. Our citizens across Europe must see that the European Union is transparent, democratic and open. The directive aims to adapt existing legislation to reflect developments in IT such as the Internet. Rapid and widespread access to the Net is crucial for giving people access to information on air and water quality. At a time when consumers are unsure about what exactly they are eating, it is important that they have as much knowledge as possible about the air they are breathing and the water they are drinking. The internet revolution has transformed the world. PCs can be found in many households, schools, colleges and offices. It is high time that as much information as possible is available to our citizens, and environmental information should be at the top of the list. Many MEPs including myself have set up websites to let constituents know what we are doing and how measures in the European Union affect them. The dot com world is too important to ignore. Information and communications technologies are developing at a rapid pace and we must keep up with these changes and ensure information continues to be disseminated efficiently. Access to information is the very least our citizens deserve and we in the European Parliament must act so that this access is promoted and not denied. Angelilli report (A5-0070/2001)

Political group: PSE
I am surprised. I have asked for explanations of a series of accusations which have been made in this House and I have received no reply. I would ask that somebody answer my question.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it has been interesting to draw up this report through a Hughes Procedure between two committees. In most cases I believe we have succeeded in creating a certain cohesion between the committees and also with the previous reports on the same issue which were also mentioned earlier. I also believe that the rapporteurs have tried to achieve such cohesion, particularly with regard to creating a bridge between the previously approved reports and this report. That is excellent, but on certain points I believe we have not succeeded in this yet. This is particularly true with regard to the TV standards which appear in some of the amendments. We have also fought a great deal over the term “co-regulation”. In this case I find it easier to and will accept what the rapporteur has put forward, but it does not sound quite as good translated into many of the other languages. Co-regulation meaning an authority which in the final instance oversees the balance is acceptable, but some of the translations of the report talk loosely about common provisions, and that is not as descriptive. Balance in this report is important. I believe that, when voting tomorrow, we should ensure that there is a balance in the provisions between, on the one hand, ‘must carry’ obligations and financial compensation for those required to follow them and, on the other hand, compensation for the telecommunications companies which have obligations under the other regulations. I also believe that tomorrow we must ensure that there is still a comprehensive directory service, something which we can only achieve if there is a financial benefit to operating such a service. We must not forget this when voting tomorrow or in the coming Directive on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to fully endorse Mrs Pack’s very emotionally-charged contribution. What she has said here is completely justified. There is not one truth in Kosovo, there are several. I refuse to accept that we can now talk about a genocide in reverse – that is bending the truth. I completely concur with the draft resolution which is before us. We condemn all violence over there and that is what we need to do, but we cannot talk about genocide in reverse. Needless to say, the situation in Mitrovica is very dangerous and we all know why. There are also important economic interests at stake and the whole tragedy surrounding the Trepca mines also plays its part. We have already talked about the fate of the political prisoners. There is a great deal of pain, a lot of suffering in Kosovo. The people are holding demonstrations, they are sending us e-mails. They ask us where their children are, their sons. We need to be able to go back with a proper answer. The case of Flora Brovina is just one of many. We are right to include this in the draft resolution, but there are hundreds, even thousands of Flora Brovinas out there. I would ask the Commission and the absent Council at long last to do something for these political prisoners. The fact that they are locked up in Serbia also fuels the unrest and violence in Kosovo.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am afraid that the Council did not understand my specific question. Perhaps there was an interpreting problem. My question was as to whether the United States put any pressure on the EU to withdraw the FARC representative’s visa.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, this is becoming a regular item. We were not getting interpretation throughout. So, dear Freddy, I did not understand a word you said – but I am sure it was wonderful! (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, this very night we shall be discussing the proposal for a Council Decision on European digital content. One of our concerns in connection with this Decision is the need to determine how harmful content can best be kept off the Net in future. Are there plans to establish hotlines that would enable European citizens to report discoveries of harmful Internet content to a central agency? What about Internet groups, Internet police units and user groups which are formed with a view to uncovering harmful content on the Net? Are there also plans for technical mechanisms to filter harmful content out of the Internet in future?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the view of the Greek Communist Party is that the main problem of Cyprus is not its accession to the European Union but the occupation of 40% of its territory by Turkey, which has continued for 26 years. Regardless of the national origin of each Cypriot, the future of the Cypriot people must involve the unity of that small country. The only acceptable solution that guarantees the future, that leaves no room for foreign interventions, like those that led to all the problems of the last fifty years, is a unified and federal Cyprus in accordance with the resolutions of the UN’s Security Council. The key to solving the Cyprus problem is in the hands of the Turkish Government, which supports and encourages the intransigence of the Turkish Cypriot leader Raouf Denkta. For its part, the European Union, with its hypocritical professions of interest in freedom and human rights, has never been moved by the drama of the Cypriot people, by the problem of Greek and Turkish Cypriot refugees, by the enforced change of the population composition in the north of Cyprus, or by the wholesale settlement of colonists by Turkey in the occupied areas. Even in this Chamber, the Council’s representative referred to the north of Cyprus and not to the occupied territories. The recent Helsinki decision to grant Turkey accession country status, even though it has made not the slightest concession over the issue of its occupation of Cyprus, for example, by reducing its military presence there or giving back Ammokhostos, is clearly encouraging Turkey’s intransigence. It is not by chance that, immediately after Helsinki, the Turkish Prime Minister, Bulent Ecevit, stated that the Cyprus issue had been resolved in 1974. Encouraging Turkish intransigence certainly does not help to bring the two communities closer together in the intimate talks under the aegis of the UN Secretary General. On their course towards accession, the people of Cyprus have already lost a great deal, but stand to lose even more. The application of the acquis communautaire has created serious problems for the Cypriot economy, especially in agriculture. It entails the liquidation of the public sector, and it dislocates and destroys the developed system of social solidarity that exists in Cyprus.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am not very impressed by this second rail package given that I strongly support the public services. I voted against the first rail package also. Its effects have yet to make themselves felt in practice. It has not even been fully implemented. Nevertheless, we have already been presented with a second package, which is just as bad as the last previous one. The aim of the Jarzembowski report is to speed up the development of competition. It attempts to apply road transport standards to rail transport with disastrous consequences. It is actually stated clearly that opening up the rail freight transport market will lead to increased competition which is likely to entail job losses. In short, this report means more liberalisation for fewer jobs. As for the report on safety, its main aim is liberalisation; safety is just an excuse. It is evident that the justification sections often use the safety argument to protect the internal market and exclude new players. The market and safety issues are however clearly incompatible. I will vote in favour of the next two reports, even though the funds allocated to achieving interoperability are meagre and insufficient, and even though the Agency will remain confined within the framework, in which it was established, namely liberalisation. We would do well to remember the long list of environmental and human disasters that ensued from the complete liberalisation of the maritime transport sector. The liberalisation of sectors that are currently regulated will spell profits for some, but for the rest it will mean accidents, poor working conditions, redundancy and for the passengers, a lower standard of service. Sadly, we have already seen many examples of this, from the collapse of Sabena and that of Air Lib, to the state of the railways in Britain I remain a strong advocate for the provision of a high-quality European public service. I am for cooperation between different rail networks. I fully support the process of harmonising working conditions, safety standards, salaries and social rights. I believe that the people and those employed in the public services should be in control. In short, I am opposed to this second rail package.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, after 28 years of conflict and occupation, there is now a glimmer of hope for the peaceful reunification of Cyprus. It is this glimmer of hope which inspired the draft resolution that we shall vote on tomorrow. We hope that the two sides, who are running short of time and nearing the deadline, will be able to accept, after Copenhagen, the major points contained in Kofi Annan’s balanced proposals. If so, the reunified and reconciled island of Cyprus will be able to join the European Union. The Greek Cypriots have already accepted these proposals, within the deadline set by the Secretary-General, whereas the Turkish Cypriots are continuing to drag their feet. Any intervention by a third party could still destroy the fragile balance of the UN plan. It could have been destroyed, for example, by the threat from the Turkish Government, which insists that, even after a political solution has been found, Cyprus could not join the European Union before Turkey. This kind of colonial attitude – which I refer to in passing – would jeopardise the independence and the sovereignty of Cyprus, confirmed by the Security Council resolutions. It would also steamroller the opinion of the trade unions, opposition parties and the Turkish Cypriot population, 98% of whom, in a recent survey, voted in favour of joining. Since each candidate country is being judged on its own merits, a veto of this kind – if it were applied – could only be rejected outright and, in this scenario, the Copenhagen European Council would have the easy task of allowing the Republic of Cyprus to join the European Union, in line with the Helsinki conclusions. The Turkish Cypriot would unfortunately lose out because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. In the same vein, I would also like the President-in-Office of the Council and Commissioner Verheugen to reiterate to Parliament that a possible failure of the constitutional referendum in one of the two parts of the island will not jeopardise Cyprus’s accession to the European Union. We have not quite reached this point yet and today, hopefully, if we make a last-ditch effort, we will not miss out on this historic opportunity. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me to start by regretting that the Council established its policy as early as the end of February without waiting for the opinion of the European Parliament. Although it has taken a long time to get this report through Parliament, that does not give the Council an excuse to disregard Parliament’s role in the legislative process. Having said that, I believe that the directive concerns a very central area of the debate on immigration and integration. It is a fact that family reunifications among third country citizens contribute between 40 and 50% of the total number of immigrants into the EU. The directive will help to produce greater clarity concerning the rules, improved integration and a fairer distribution of the burden within the Community. At the same time, the directive gives the Member States sufficient opportunities to prevent inadvertent economic immigration. It must be emphasised that family reunification helps to secure values that are entirely fundamental to every individual: the family unit and a normal family life. On behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I have supported the proposed amendment that creates a wider definition of family and also brings third country citizens with subsidiary protection within the rules on family reunification. At the same time, however, I do not consider it wrong for us to link certain requirements to the rules on family reunification. I still believe that the Member States must have the opportunity to set requirements, for example in the form of a normal standard of accommodation, an income that ensures that the family can be provided for, and respect for public order and security, as well as the opportunity to establish a waiting period. It is my wish that this report will be adopted with as much support as possible in this House, and that the Council will then in future listen to the advice we give it.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, it is excellent that we are dealing with this European health card on a first reading. We should bear in mind, as the Commissioner has pointed out, that it has taken two and a half years to get to this point through negotiations with five presidencies. Nevertheless, this is a tangible reality for citizens of Europe. It is a tangible way of bringing Europe closer to the citizens and I would support the view that this card should, in fact, have a European logo and should be very clearly identified as a European benefit for citizens. The forms that it is replacing – E111, E128, E110, and E119 – sound more like food additives than health passports, but I am pleased that this card will now replace those in good time. We also need to insist – rather than simply recommending – that Member States ensure people know that this card is available, that they know how to apply for it, how it can be used and what their rights will be.

Political group: PSE