GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would also like to pay tribute to Mr Lamassoure's excellent work as rapporteur. Although I have been a constant critic of Turkey's human rights record and its treatment of the Kurds, I also strongly support the decision of the 1999 Helsinki European Council to recognise Turkey as an candidate country. I do not agree with those who believe the boundaries of Europe should be narrow and exclusively Christian. I want to see a pluralistic Europe. I have always believed that Turkey could be a very important bridge-head between the current Members of the EU and the Islamic world. This would facilitate greater understanding and mutual respect. It is especially important in the changed world that exists after 11 September. However, Turkey still has a long way to go. In last year's annual assessment report the Commission concluded that, although a wide-ranging debate on political reforms had begun and Turkey had signed several international human rights instruments over the past year, the situation on the ground had hardly improved. Let us hope that the publication of next month's annual report will show significant improvement. In this context, I welcome the recent decision by the Turkish parliament to adopt a constitutional reform package to bring Turkey further in line with the acquis communautaire. At the launch of the EU-Turkish Foundation of 17 October, Commissioner Verheugen said that these reforms are a significant step towards better protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Turkey. It is clear that continued support for a closer EU-Turkey relationship, including eventual accession, is the best way to accelerate political reform and progress in human rights. However, the timetable for possible accession lies in Turkish hands alone. Negotiations can only begin when Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen criteria. It must strive harder to fulfil its obligations in that regard.

Political group: PPE-DE
The liberals and conservatives of all kinds (and colours) who have signed a joint resolution have caused the failure of all the attempts to defend cultural diversity and reject the commoditisation of culture. All the amendments of the Group in this regard were rejected. That is why, like the members of my delegation of the republican, radical, pro-citizen , the Group and a very few other MEPs, I voted against this ‘PPE- -Liberals’ resolution. This type of Europe is not the European Europe for which I have fought for 40 years.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I believe this discussion to be both important and delicate, in that we are considering violations of human rights, a country’s very poor social and economic conditions, and how we should plan a strategy aimed at helping to improve matters. I would also like to put on record my immense regret that the Cuban authorities have not been prepared to cooperate, and that Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, the winner of the Sakharov Prize, has, alas, not been allowed to leave Cuba and take part in this debate, which I would like to take as an opportunity to express to him and to his friends our solidarity with them, so that it may be made clear that the democratic opposition in Cuba enjoys our support and solidarity. For this reason, I would like the Council and the Commission to tell us how we are now to proceed in order to prevent human rights from being violated, how we may support the seventy human rights activists who have been in jail since 18 March 2003, and what means exist for setting at liberty political dissidents in general. Cuba is one of the last Communist regimes and its economic system is also the wrong one. Both these factors, taken together, explain the catastrophic situation in which the country finds itself. We can now discuss whether or not a boycott, such as that imposed on Cuba by the United States, is the right strategic approach to adopt, but this boycott is not the cause of the problems. I think this has to be made very clear. The fact is that, in the days when there were still Communist regimes in Europe, the massive aid to the former German Democratic Republic, including such things as loans to the tune of billions, which gave the GDR every opportunity for trade as a de facto Member State of the European Union, did not bring about the development of a democratic system in the GDR that was capable of meeting the economic and social needs of its people in a proper and civilised manner. I believe that it is in this context, and with clarity, that we have to see our dealings with Cuba, and that we should therefore consider whether this is in any way the right approach in view of Cuba’s accession to the Cotonou Agreement. If this were conditional on Cuba opening itself up, on greater freedom to travel, on the free movement of persons – including members of the opposition – then, in Cuba too, a start could be made on a proper process of transition. For that to happen, though, we need to see progress in certain areas. I would therefore be very interested to learn, both from the Council and the Commission, how a transformation strategy of this sort might be set in motion, whereby one of the last Communist dictatorships might be brought down, something that would be desirable from the point of view of the people who are its victims in this wretched country. I therefore look forward with eager anticipation to what the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council have to tell us on this subject. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the joint resolution on Mercosur – which we support – is a balanced reflection of the European Union’s concerns regarding the extremely serious crisis affecting Mercosur and which threatens to affect the Andean Community of Nations. The resolution firmly expresses the solidarity that the Europeans share with the peoples with whom we have so many historical ties through friendship and even family. Unfortunately, this solidarity is not expressed by means of a co-ordinated position of the Member States in the international financial institutions, which are in fact largely responsible for the disaster in Argentina, as a former IMF Chief Economist, Professor Stieglitz, demonstrated so well. The resolution quite rightly calls for our policies to be co-ordinated in order to provide financial aid to the Mercosur countries and to include these new guidelines in the EU-Mercosur agreement that is currently being negotiated. These negotiations also cover external debt, the ethical position of businesses and the European banks. So, there are many good resolutions, and yet the issue remains and will without a shadow of a doubt be raised in the US: does Europe really wish to save South America? In order to calm the fears of our Mercosur partners, we must listen to their demands and dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Hence the three amendments that we tabled to our own resolution: firstly, the very clear rejection of financial conditions which would further exacerbate the poverty of the Mercosur peoples, such as lowering salaries or making cuts in public services. Secondly, Europe’s renunciation of its subsidies for agricultural dumping for exports that are largely responsible for Mercosur’s difficulties, and lastly, the creation of a bilateral citizen’s committee so that the representatives of our societies can be involved in the negotiations.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my question relates to the order of the votes on the amendments concerning Paragraph 10, in other words, the genocide in Armenia. As the vote was to have taken place yesterday, the voting sheet you prepared listed the votes in a different order, which was logical. Today’s order is not logical. So I suggest we draw up yesterday’s voting list again, in other words, to vote on Amendment No 13 first.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I believe that in this debate our problem is not so much to reopen all the discussions we have held time and time again on the meaning and the nature of services of general interest, but to deal with the issue of security and the framework, and more precisely that of the democratic security and the democratic framework, within the context of the debate on services of general interest. Today’s speech, Commissioner Patten, has certainly been reassuring, but you will be aware that the same can be said of Commissioner Lamy’s speech, a month ago. At that time we talked about discussion, about very rich consultation – three hundred contributions – we planned to carry out an analysis, we talked about options available to us, about the framework directive, the consensus within the Convention in favour of a European law. And the Commission considered and considered ... As for me, I have the feeling that in this way we are holding a form of debate which almost found its rhythm until the White Paper in April, while Commissioner Monti, during this time, has been presenting his ‘packages’, in which he makes snap decisions on the issues and all of this without debate and without discussion. I believe this is in unacceptable way of doing things, because the campaign for a democratic Europe, aimed at highlighting the added value of Community policies, is not going to be carried out by Mr Monti, but by us. However, if Mr Monti wants to, let him, instead of us, wage the electoral campaign to defend the social Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my delegation would like to protest at the services' ruling that Amendment 8 is inadmissible. This amendment, which opposes Strasbourg sessions, is consistent with the Treaty obligations, enables Parliament to choose the place of its own sitting for once, and puts a stop to this travelling circus backwards and forwards between here and Brussels, which will become even more difficult post-enlargement for those countries given the poor communications by air to Strasbourg. Finally, it will save the European taxpayer EUR 150 million a year. (Mixed reactions)

Political group: PPE-DE
While the British Conservative Delegation are determined to play a full part in the fight against terrorism and fully support enhanced cooperation between the police and other law enforcement organisations in the various Member States, we cannot support moves towards the extension of Eurojust. The United Kingdom should not become a member of Eurojust and should retain its own strong resistance to terrorism. The Delegation supports the initiatives in the recent Kirkhope report on the establishment of Joint Investigation teams in which police forces combine intelligence in the fight against major criminals. This initiative has yet to be implemented in the Member States. Eurojust is not the way forward and is unnecessary if cooperation is improved following the report. For the reasons outlined above the British Conservative Delegation abstained on this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Sanders-ten Holte for the work she has done and I welcome the fruitful cooperation that has developed between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the outcome of which is the text that has just been presented to us, a text which, I hope, will make a real contribution towards promoting the high quality education throughout Europe we aspire to. On behalf of my committee, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I would particularly like to stress the importance of improving the quality of teaching in schools and vocational training, and seeking to implement a system for exchanging good practice and methodological tools. These are ways of achieving social cohesion and reducing unemployment. High quality education systems must strive to achieve objectives, such as to get people into the labour market, to reduce the number of young people leaving school early, our ability to provide life-long learning and to give people access to the new technologies. I must highlight two points in this quality evaluation as specified in the common position. First of all, this process makes a clear distinction between administrative evaluation and the innovative procedures that we would like to see and that we would like to implement and in which, as has been said, all stakeholders must take part. The second point which I would like to highlight has perhaps not been fully taken on board, as we would have wished. What we do not want to do is to turn the quality evaluation process into a factor for establishing a hierarchy, classification or league table of schools. On the contrary, this form of evaluation should allow each establishment, however different in terms of its students or the methods or resources used, to meet all the risks of dropping out, to improve the intrinsic quality of education for everyone and to accept all pupils of all abilities by offering education which is tailored to the students’ requirements and by allowing everyone to discover their own personal development needs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, you really have to rub your eyes two or three times when you read what kind of proposal the Commission has come up with by way of a solution to these problems, which have been discussed time and again. It is absolutely true what Mr Souchet, as rapporteur, and Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development have had to say on the subject. They have my unequivocal support. On the other hand, however, there can be no doubt that the bottleneck in the budget and also the special WTO agreements represent a completely new challenge at the end of the day, particularly where export refunds are concerned. Who would have thought, even as little as a year ago, that we would be facing this conundrum, and having to weigh up the interests of agricultural product processors against those of the farmers who produce the products. If the Commission is now looking for a way to resolve this export bottleneck in products that are not covered by Annex I, then it is certainly responding to a need. Yet there is not the slightest suggestion in the Commission proposal that the problems facing the raw materials producers, i.e. the farmers, have been registered. I am in complete agreement with Mr Souchet. Thank you very much for all the work you have put into the report. He rightly complains that the Commission is offering no alternative courses of action. One thing is for sure though, there must be no restriction in the availability of raw materials at competitive prices, and at the end of the day, agricultural policy cannot be devoted exclusively to the protection of the raw materials producers. But then nor should the burden fall on one side alone in agriculture, or have to be borne by individual products. There are agricultural products that almost pay for the export refunds themselves, at the end of the day, owing to contributions from the producers, i.e. the farmers. Sugar is a case in point. The farmers’ contributions go into the general melting pot of the EU budget on the revenue side, and if export refunds are cut then these contributions will decline too. As I said, sugar is a particular case in point. I feel we must give special consideration to this issue, and give it priority where export refunds are concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, beforehand there were rumours circulating that the high level working party was intending to propose an onion skin model for Europe, a sort of system of concentric circles. It is a pity that the report contains no ‘onions’, as institutional differentiation would seem to be the only realistic solution for a Union that is expanding fast. In the future Europe must comprise three institutional circles. The outer circle would be the European Council, whose intergovernmental institutions could be utilised better than they are at present by giving them new jobs to do. The second circle would be the European Union, which would develop as an association of states in the future. This would mean the decentralisation of decision making and would require intergovernmental cooperation to be strengthened. This sort of EU association could easily and rapidly expand. The inner circle would be the Federation of Europe, made up of an integrated group of EU states that had progressed the furthest: those that belong to NATO and the euro area. The EU would thus become an association of states, the core of which would be a federation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on behalf of the Group, I wish to congratulate Mr Paasilinna on his report, which we very much welcome. He has drawn up not only a very concise but also a very hard-hitting report. It is entirely appropriate as a response to the telecommunications communication from the Commission and exactly what we needed to give us a basis on which to move into our further consideration of the whole electronic communications package, which we shall be debating again in a month's time. I want to focus on some of the key points highlighted in the report. I am going to leave issues on radio spectrum policy to my colleague, Mrs Niebler, who will be responding on behalf of our Group to Mr Alyssandrakis’ report. Just to move forward on some of the issues related to opening up the market. The first and most encouraging thing from our point of view is that we now see the wisdom of opening the telecommunications market. To have an open competitive regime has now become the accepted wisdom. It is something that is fully accepted and we now need to translate that and move that forward as quickly as possible, towards further deregulation and even quicker opening of those markets that still work imperfectly. There is a tremendous amount of detailed analysis in this report and it clearly shows the consumer benefits in price reductions, choice and increased services that have flowed from deregulation. However, it also clearly shows that there are far too many barriers, and the Commission has our full support in tackling them. For consumers to benefit from this choice, they have to be encouraged to shop around, to compare in many cases what can be quite complex offers of prices and contract terms and service packages. We would like to encourage independent regulators to work together to provide simple, impartial price comparisons for consumers and use the sort of new tools they have available, like the Internet, to give consumers the ability to calculate the real cost of their calls. We encourage the regulators to share best practice with each other to provide a unified price and contract comparison system. We will not have a developed market unless we have investment. The other issue we have to address is the ability of investors to make satisfactory returns on their investment. Therefore, in looking at the market-opening regulations, we have to look at methods of competition and encourage competition between the different parts and elements of the platforms. That is something we shall address in the next communication. We welcome this report, which is really going to encourage market-opening to the benefit of consumers and the European economy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the resolution submitted for Parliament’s consideration on air transport contains serious dangers which I should like to highlight. It proposed, in effect, that competences in air traffic control matters should be transferred to the European level, that the operational services of air traffic control should be privatised, and even that competition should be encouraged between these services. Air traffic has doubled since 1986, and will double again by 2015. The resolution gives the green light to the deregulation of air transport and sees the privatisation of the main body of airlines and the development of unbridled competition as something positive. Anyone can see, however, that this development is being carried out in a way that is completely divorced from the transport requirements of the European public. European airlines are competing on the same routes, each of them separately establishing worldwide alliances, their only concern being for instant profit. They duplicate the flights of small carriers and compete for the same time slots. Instead of establishing a joint transport development plan, the European Union, using an intermodal approach between air and rail, has, quite to the contrary, moved towards privatisation and deregulation. The result of this is traffic saturation and pollution and, at the same time, a deterioration in working conditions and in the status of those employed in air transport, as companies subcontract as many of their activities as possible in order to minimise social costs. This resolution is giving way to the dictates of the major companies, who now want to privatise air traffic control services as well. The delays and the congestion are not the fault of the air traffic control system. The ATM 2000 report summarises the financial aims of this approach and it is pretty bad. The methods facilitating safety objectives must be looked at from the economic point of view. They must avoid the excessive use of flow restrictions or traffic limitation and not unduly increase the cost of creating new systems. The professional rigour of air traffic control employees, whose primary concern is the safety of the aeroplanes and passengers, is directly at stake. This is why we are opposed to this resolution, which in fact seeks to place air traffic control in the clutches of the financial interests of large companies, to the detriment of passenger safety.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I shall make this very brief. The intention seems to be that this House should have a debate on blood at about midnight when the werewolves are out, but be that as it may, at precisely midnight, I heard Commissioner Byrne say – but it may have been an error of interpretation, which is why I should like to have it repeated – that he did not believe that blood from stable and voluntary pools of donors, familiar to us from a number of Member States, was safer and of a higher quality than that obtained from people who supplement their income by donating blood. I am shocked that this is how the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection views the situation, so I hope that he will deny having said these words. It is absolutely certain that blood from a voluntary and stable body of donors who readily make their blood available to their fellow members of society is of a better quality than blood obtained from people wishing to supplement their income in this way.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is a straightforward case of illegal actions. Mr Tsiakourmas should be released and treated properly and his case should not be a weapon in a propaganda war between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the latest manifestation of which is about which side has destroyed more of the other's culture. I am pleased to represent both communities as residents of London, and both deserve equal respect for themselves and their culture. I refuse to choose one side or the other. Our interest is in a united European Cyprus. The EU must get more engaged in the search for a political solution and it should press for mutual respect. We could perhaps give some funding to the preservation of both sides' cultural monuments. But in the meantime Mr Tsiakourmas must not be held hostage. Illegal action is illegal wherever it happens and this case must be solved without it becoming a weapon in a propaganda war.

Political group: ELDR