GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are in favour of developing research and thus of funding it. Of all the European institutions’ expenditure, it is certainly not expenditure on research and development that bothers us, provided that it does not serve solely as a pretext for subsidising private companies. We note, however, that it is research funding, along with social expenditure, that is most readily cut, at least in France, so as to increase aids and subsidies to big business. It remains the case that the entire approach adopted in this report is to see research purely as a factor in competition between Europe and the United States or between different companies. In fact, the report itself is obliged to note that private companies, being essentially concerned with profit, indeed with short-term profits, are neglecting to invest in research. There is actually a contradiction between the search for profit and scientific research in the interests of society as a whole. We did not vote against this report because we are in favour of public research benefiting from considerably more resources than is currently the case, but neither did we want to sanction the way research takes second place to the race for profit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, in view of the fact that the market is becoming ever more global in character, it is more important than ever for companies to optimise their competitiveness. For this reason it is sometimes inevitable that companies will have to reorganise or introduce painful measures such as transferring or replacing employees, or if the worst comes to the worst, making them redundant. As my group sees it, neither the European Parliament nor the European Commission have the authority to intervene in the operational management of European companies. Companies ought to be free to take management decisions which will lead to growth and thus to more jobs being created. That is what Europe needs. It goes without saying that my group believes that the restructuring of companies must take place following thorough and timely consultation with the works council. The right of employees to consultation and information as laid down in various European directives should be respected. In addition we should also see to it that measures taken at national and European level improve the economic climate in Europe. After all, inappropriate social or economic commitments for companies lead to more unemployment instead of more jobs Finally, I would like to say, Mr President, that a number of companies in France have also reached the conclusion that there is a need for reorganisation. Better late than never because all companies must be primed for the 21st century. That will be good for Europe and will guarantee jobs in the long term.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I voted against Mr Mennea’s report, which is no reflection upon Mr Mennea. I remember his time as a great sprinter, and I was delighted that someone from a European country was able to end American dominance of the sport. I voted against Mr Mennea’s report because I am quite adamant that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, sport is not a matter for the European Parliament. By turning sports issues into political issues, we do a disservice both to sport and to the idea of drawing the peoples of Europe closer together. I believe it is downright harmful, as well as wrong, to try to create a legal basis in this area. On the basis of the subsidiarity principle and given the sort of society I want to work for, I believe in sport’s own ability to deal with these issues in national and international associations. Let us unite behind this idea. I also believe that the Bosman judgment has done very great harm to football and that the sporting community has every reason in the future to ask the European Parliament and the European Union to keep away from this area. Let these issues be handled at national level and by the sporting community itself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this new regulation is – as has been said – very important for passengers. It is very much awaited too, as the fierce competition between companies means the quality of services is still, it has to be said, a cause for considerable criticism. I understand that this is not about over-regulating, but providing a clear framework for dealing with claims and compensation, because passengers are generally ill-informed of their rights in relation to powerful and influential companies, and I support the many speakers who have expressed that point of view. I also know that those same companies are going through a difficult period, particularly since 11 September 2001. However, I would like to ask one or two questions on the problem of refusing boarding. Overbooking is a more correct term, even if it is not very French, because it describes the actual cause, or even the strategy of the companies in some cases, and not just the consequence. But that is a semantic aside. During the plenary debate at first reading, the Commission stated that this overbooking was a marginal phenomenon compared with the general flow of air passengers. I would like to know whether we are really certain of that. The Commission says it has figures close to 250 000 passengers refused in 1999, that is, 1.1 per thousand. I am simply wondering about the reliability of these statistics as they are, I suppose, provided by the companies themselves. The reason I am asking these questions is that I had a problem less than a month ago on a Nice to Brussels flight with SN Brussels Airlines. Without going into details, as this is not the place, there were six of us on the flight – a regular flight – who were overbooked, while my husband and my 7-year old son, who had the same tickets and booked at the same time with the same agency, boarded the plane. One case among 250 000 others, I imagine. That this is a company strategy – and, of course, it is not the only company to do this – was confirmed to me by the ground staff at the airport and by many consumer associations. I am therefore not so certain that this phenomenon is as marginal as that and I can only welcome, like other speakers before me, the increase, in this new regulation, in the protection of passengers’ rights.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, increasing the proportion of electricity from renewable energy sources is a good move. The share of renewable energy sources proposed, 22% by 2010, compared with 13.9% now, is particularly ambitious and I am just wondering whether a directive which focuses on the market and makes no provision for parallel measures such as support for research will suffice in order to achieve it. One very serious question is how to deal with the extra generation costs. The directive talks about support systems, basically a premium paid to companies which operate in this sector, and relies on so-called market mechanisms for the final solution. This basically means that workers will be subsidising both the company's costs and its profits and, of course, this would not happen if the energy generation and distribution industry were a nationalised industry, as we in the Communist Party of Greece insist that it should be, and if it had not been sold off to the private sector on the orders of bid business. We therefore believe that this directive will not achieve its intended purpose.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Despite the fact that it confines itself to refugees under the Geneva Convention, I intend to vote in favour of this report. The Commission proposal will do nothing to advance the cause of the vast majority of homosexuals or refugees granted temporary or subsidiary protection. However, particularly from a German perspective, it represents an improvement in the situation of those refugees who are in a position to facilitate the legal entry of others, under the ‘family members’ heading. And that is not the only reason I will be voting in favour. Despite the fact that we Germans now hoist the flag against the extreme right almost on a daily basis, it is the German Minister of the Interior, Mr Schily, of all people, who has spoken out against this immigration-friendly legislation. He is afraid that millions of immigrants will come to Germany if the directive comes into force. In saying these things, he is playing into the hands of those who aim to drive these ‘millions’ of people out of Germany – dead or alive – using violent methods. As a result, not only will our commitment to fighting the extreme right become a mask of hypocrisy; it will be turned on its head.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, a paradoxical situation awaits state leaders at Santa Maria da Feira, as we could say that there the notion of the logistics of inter-state action is being irreversibly left behind in the development of the Union. In our opinion, this is very welcome. We warmly welcome the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and we would like it to be vibrant in terms of its content, and to become a legally binding part of the Treaties and a vehicle for a constitutional process in which the people are a central factor. I also believe that the way in which the Charter of Fundamental Rights is being produced is radically new, and this could also be a way to amend agreements in the future to make them genuinely constitutional. In our opinion, public opinion is at its lowest ebb now when it comes to the formation of military institutions for the European Union. I would like, on behalf of my Group, to complain that barely any public debate is entered into in these matters, and that changes happen so fast that sometimes it feels as if not even all our governments can fully influence this process. Relations between the European Union and NATO are converging so quickly that the non-aligned countries are in a very precarious situation, although they want to make a full contribution to the promotion of national security. I would like to say that the Mediterranean strategy is a very important one. I was recently in New York at a conference on women’s issues. I appeal to the Commission and the Council that you make a serious bid to include the issues of women’s rights and human rights in the Mediterranean strategy. I also warmly welcome the concrete action programme concerning the northern dimension. It may at last help to make a serious attempt to resolve the immense socio-economic problem that exists, for example, in north-west Russia. In that process we have to remember the issue of nuclear safety, which is a problem that affects us all.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Lagendijk once said, and rightly so, that recently, since Helsinki, the gap between the European Union and Turkey has narrowed; but the problem is that the gap between Turkey and democratic principles, respect for human rights and compliance with international law remains almost as wide as ever. What we have to achieve is that, as the gap between Turkey and the European Union is reduced, the gap between Turkey and democracy, human rights and international resolutions is reduced proportionally. The truth, however, is that in recent times things have not been going well in this area in Turkey, where human rights are still being violated. For example, we know of the letter by Pierre Sané, the secretary of Amnesty International, to the Commission and Council at the end of last year, and also the threats in the last few days to Akin Birdal and the Turkish Human Rights Association, the persistent declarations by the Turkish authorities on the situation of the Kurdish people and the Cyprus conflict, and many other matters. In adopting the Swoboda report we will for the nth time be sending a positive message to Turkey: look, we in the European Union want our relations to get better and better and for you to be part of our great family, but for this to happen it is essential that you comply with democratic principles. We have to get this message understood by Ankara, but at the moment they do not want to understand. The message is a positive response but with this reasoning, with these conditions, with this hope that demonstrable steps will effectively be taken in the immediate future. I can suggest some, such as freeing our Sakharov prize-winner Leyla Zana, taking a constructive and committed attitude towards Cyprus and the Kurds, and, of course, adopting the essential legal changes to certain laws which date from the military dictatorship and still do not respect human rights.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, unlike Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan rests on a solid legal basis. The United Nations Security Council agreed to the military action aimed at eliminating the terrorist bases where the attacks against the United States in Kenya, in Yemen, in New York and in Washington had been promoted. Also unlike secular Iraq, the Afghanistan of the Taliban had taken the form of a retrograde clerical State in which one of the worst forms of repression consisted of reducing women to the status of nonentity. Despite these clear differences, there are certain similarities between the economic and political reconstructions of Iraq and of Afghanistan. As in Iraq, in Afghanistan there is also increasing insecurity, which obliges civilian and military personnel, both indigenous and foreign, to dedicate much of their efforts to their own protection. Afghanistan and Iraq are both countries with a tribal structure where local bosses and ethnic and religious leaders only want to take the biggest slice of the national cake. In the past, national unity was only guaranteed by means of a dictatorship, and foreigners or occupying forces are not considered as allies unless they serve the interests of a certain clan chief. But as time passes, their presence is becoming more and more embarrassing, and at any time irritation may turn to hate, with a war of liberation just around the corner. The Brie report on Afghanistan brings us face to face with this reality by reminding us of certain essential truths, including the need to speed up the pace of reform and reconstruction. It rightly criticises the ambiguities of the new Constitution adopted by the tribal grand council, particularly with regard to the restriction of freedom of expression and the situation of women. When in 2004 we still see the shadows of women imprisoned in their burkas wandering amongst the ruins and the misery, the advantages over the previous regime are not at all obvious. The challenge of nation building is far from being won. Nevertheless, like our rapporteur I believe that, for the moment, the United Nations, the European Union and NATO have no choice but to continue their efforts to apply great courage to constructing a democratic Afghanistan which respects the rights of men and women. It is essential to establish decentralised institutions and the withdrawal of foreign troops. It is then up to Afghanistan to take control of its own destiny.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, we would like to thank you for drawing attention to two political points. Mr Piétrasanta’s report on the MEDA programme is widely supported and a joint effort: we really do have the same aims. The two political points on which you based your speech are, firstly, the importance of the role of the Mediterranean as a European border and also as an area which is the focus of a substantial chunk of our Union’s foreign policy, and, secondly, the fact that the Commission certainly made its measures very tangible and more timely in the transition from MEDA I to MEDA II. Indeed, in our meetings with the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, we have been constantly reminded of the need for different administration timetables. In this connection, we note that the Commission is making a considerable effort. I will not, of course, list the points already mentioned by the rapporteur. I would like to focus on a number of political requirements which go hand in hand with the action programme. We certainly need to identify new social action programmes and, above all, we need to concentrate on protecting people with disabilities as well as new forms of cooperation concerning the protection of children. In the context of the situations on which you, Commissioner, are focusing, we would point out the need, with a view precisely to foreign policy and the role of the European Union, to insist on the conclusion of the Syria/EU negotiations in order to complete the network of Euro-Mediterranean association agreements, just as we must proceed as soon as possible with the selection of the funding programme planning projects which is at present suspended in Israel and Palestine, for they could play a very important role in this part of the Mediterranean region. I will end by stressing the need for a parliamentary assembly, for that is the political forum in which a solution could well be found to many of the processes currently in progress.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the development of relations with the Mediterranean, Europe cannot fail to give due importance to this geographical area of the world. The economic boom in Far East Asia has changed all the parameters, and the Mediterranean Sea has become an important element in international trade, assuming major importance. Trade and cultural relations have to be given priority for economic reasons; a cooperation process needs to be set in motion, but the development of countries which are developing at a slower rate than Western countries also needs to be promoted. There must be political and commercial dialogue and cultural and financial cooperation. This is what is important for the development of relations between the European Parliament and the countries of this area of the world. The Mediterranean Sea is the testing ground for the European Parliament’s capacities to act outside the borders of the Union. It is a well-known fact that the great Europe which is a dream of so many cannot be achieved without the political and economic involvement of this major, fundamental part of the Union.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I want to speak about the natural disasters which hit the south of France in the night of 12 to 13 November 1999. These were totally exceptional in their violence and the extent of the damage caused and have led to 35 deaths and FRF three to four billion worth of damage. I know that the EU budget does not provide for any credit line for natural disasters occurring in the territory of the Union. It has also not escaped me that it was this House which wanted to delete this credit line. However, I must ask you to intervene and ensure that the European Union does something, because it can in two ways. Firstly, it can authorise France to reallocate the outstanding balance of the Structural Funds not committed from the 1994-1999 programming period. Much of the funding still remains with 54% of credits not committed under Leader, 38% under Interreg, 49% under URBAN and 88% under RETEX. In order to quickly intervene, the Commission simply needs today to authorise France to redeploy part of these credits. Secondly, it can help by ensuring that, for the new programme of Structural Funds for 2000-2006, the zoning for reconstruction is properly in place and the most affected zones are included under Objective 2. Finally, is it not ironic that our Union can act totally legitimately in countries outside the EU but that it does not have the means or the ability to act within the EU? At a time when everyone, particularly Mrs Fontaine, is making rapprochement between the people of Europe and the European Union the key issue for this Parliament, I feel it is important for the EU to be able to act in a positive manner when our people are in difficulty.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Spain and Poland on their courageous and principled stand at the recent IGC, which resulted in the failure of the wretched draft Constitution. (Mixed reactions) However, I regret that it failed over voting weights, which is essentially a technical issue, when it would have been better had it failed by rejecting in principle this massive step in European integration for which there is no public demand. There is a disturbing parallel emerging between the political élites of the EU on the one hand and the former USSR on the other. Both were obsessed with their own narrow vision of the unification of their continents. Both showed an arrogant disregard for the ambitions and aspirations of ordinary people and eventually we shall be able to say that both failed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the International Criminal Court has now begun its work. The court deserves support from every state in the world, without exception. People who commit serious war crimes, including rape, must not be able to avoid being brought to justice. The EU wholeheartedly supports the court and gives it its full backing. It is incomprehensible how a democratic country such as the United States can ask for its not to be possible for those of its citizens who are complicit in this type of crime to be held accountable for serious war crimes. If the United States itself were to take legal proceedings against such criminals, that would be in accordance with the International Criminal Court’s charter, and the court would then have no reason to prosecute American citizens. The United States’s action cannot but give the impression, however, that the United States has no intention of taking legal proceedings against its citizens if they are guilty of serious war crimes. That would be devastating, especially for the United States as a community founded on the rule of law. It is, of course, also unacceptable for the United States to blackmail other countries with a view to undermining the International Criminal Court. The United States’s threat to withdraw military or economic aid if a bilateral agreement on impunity is not signed is dictatorial language that must not be accepted. I assume that the Commission and the Council will vigorously oppose this conduct and press for the United States to accept the International Criminal Court as an important legal instrument for combating serious war crimes.

Political group: PSE