GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, yesterday Members pointed out that Chechnya has been the number one item on the agenda time and again for months now. And what is the result of all our demands? We must, as Mr Sakellariou has quite clearly said, keep reiterating our demands. I believe that we must not tire of doing so because, as long as Russia dramatically steps up military force against its own civilian population, we must raise our voices here and say, ‘Enough is enough! We cannot accept this. This violates international human rights. This is not an internal matter for Russia.’ The list of war crimes is getting longer and longer. Be it the young people arrested from the list of wanted refugees or the long list of rapes which arrived in my office today and which was drawn up by independent human rights observers. This is placing the women of the Islamic community in a very dramatic situation, which is why we must take special care of them. It is the numerous, small individual destinies which call for us to speak out. In the meantime, numerous important drinking water reservoirs have been contaminated by bombarding them with oil. I call on all the Members to adopt this motion for a resolution together with the others. We received it after we had jointly debated the resolution. We cannot simply stand by and watch. Unlike Kosovo, the fact is that the 100 000 refugees are in Ingushetia without international aid. This tiny neighbouring republic is collapsing under the strain. I must say that I am surprised that there has been absolutely no reply on the part of the Commission to our demands. I expect a more specific position today on how you are implementing Parliament’s resolutions and the Helsinki resolutions. What you offered yesterday was a complete embarrassment to Parliament. In this connection, I am waiting for you to examine what is really happening in Russia with paragraph 2 of the ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have just seen a spectacular failure in European integration on the part of the Heads of State or Government, who have not been sufficiently statesmanlike to see and preserve the collective interests of all the citizens. I have often had to hear disparaging descriptions in this Parliament of the historic democratic nationalist traditions, such as the Basque nation, when all we want is to safeguard our identity and our culture and are prepared to share our laws and political competences with the other Europeans. To this end, not only are we calling for recognition as historic nations, but also a role in the democratic decision-making processes. It is not we, but certain irritating State nationalist traditions, which are slowing down Europe, as in the case of Mr Aznar, who only thinks about how to block decisions in order to impose his views on others, rather than thinking about how to build a stronger, more prosperous Europe, united in its diversity. I am convinced that, in order to move forward, the Union must cease to be dominated by State governments, that is, by executives, and become a genuine federal union, in which it is the citizens and their representatives, we Members of the European Parliament, who determine the Constitution and other Community laws. It is time to leave behind intergovernmentalism and to move towards becoming a full political entity, a supra-State with common laws for all the peoples and nations of the continent or at least for those who wish to build a common future based on dialogue, trust, understanding amongst equals and good for all.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commission proposal introduces a series of stricter regulations for the marketing of tobacco products. Our group shares the concerns about the harmful effects of tobacco and, apart from a few reservations, generally approves the Commission’s proposals, together with many of the amendments in Mr Μaaten’s report, although I do not know how effective they will be, especially those which go over the top, as other members have pointed out. Be that as it may, we shall vote in favour of most of them, together with those approved by other jointly responsible parliamentary committees. However, there are a number of proposals and amendments which either have no bearing on the matter or which will cause serious economic problems without solving the problems which they are supposedly addressing. The problem has been raised, albeit indirectly, of reducing and abolishing production aids for tobacco. Clearly such a move will not help to reduce smoking because I have not seen any of the members on their high horses proposing a ban on tobacco imports and such a move would therefore merely promote tobacco production in third countries. As for the proposals which say that money saved by abolishing subsidies will be put to certain uses, the members making these proposals obviously have no idea how the budget works. Ex ante commitments are worthless unless they constitute actual policy worked out by the relevant bodies, rather than just a statement made in a parliamentary committee. Another amendment abolishes the derogation previously granted to the Greek tobacco industry for nicotine, tar and other yields. In other words, it will upset the investment and production plans based on our decisions, based on the deadline previously granted. And it will upset them retroactively. What sort of law school did the people who approve such arbitrary reversals attend? I should be most interested to hear the Commission’s comments on this. Finally, industry is required to apply the same specifications to export products as it is to those marketed in the European Union, even if the importing countries require no such thing. This measure is presented from a moral standpoint, which, however, does not prevent tobacco industries from moving outside the European Union and exporting their products throughout the world from third countries. Multinationals are already doing just that. Obviously, the rest will follow, with huge repercussions on economic activity and employment within the European Union. Of course, the European Union could try – quite rightly – to impose its specifications on candidate and other countries with which it has close ties, perhaps even on the World Trade Organisation. But instead of focusing on serious matters, we prefer a simple, or rather a highly simplistic and ineffectual solution. I assume that the Commission, which has conducted a more in-depth analysis, will be able to enlighten us further so that, at the end of the day, we opt for a more balanced, more effective and more logical way forward.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is chilling to see how the preparations to invade Iraq have gathered pace, despite the extra time given to the weapons inspectors which, of course, we all welcome. We are seeing a situation where the most powerful country in the world has made clear its determination to wage war against Iraq, with or without United Nations backing and whether or not the weapons inspectors find any weapons of mass destruction. A pre-emptive attack like this would set a new international precedent that has no basis in the United Nations Charter. Such a war on Iraq would be immoral, unjustifiable and illegal. It would make the world a much more dangerous place, causing more resentment and fuelling more terrorism. The victims, as always, would be the innocent civilians: the hundreds of thousands of men and women and particularly the children who have already suffered years of oppression, hardship and sanctions which have put them under the complete control of Saddam Hussein. There is already a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and now the people are being threatened again. Britain has already announced the deployment of some 30,000 troops and the United States 130,000 troops which are being mobilised in readiness to attack. Opposition to this war is growing with every day that passes by groups of people of all ages, from all walks of life, and on 15 February 2003 there are going to be peace demonstrations right around the world. Those of us elected by the people in Europe can speak in this Parliament on behalf of so many of them who are saying no to war. I have received many letters from Wales and from other countries asking the European Parliament to do everything that it can to try and stop this war. Peaceful means of solving the problems have not been properly explored, let alone exhausted. It is tragic that if a fraction of the effort made by the United States and the United Kingdom to kindle their support for war had been put into bringing peace in the Middle East, we would live in a much safer and more peaceful world. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, installations at risk, such as nuclear power plants, flood-control dams, ports, oil depots, extremely tall buildings and research centres for biological warfare and for genetic manipulation will never lose their appeal for terrorists. That is why we must ensure that the number of installations which can threaten the life of human communities and of our environment is reduced to a minimum. Instead of subsidising airline companies with tax money, enabling them to continue pulling off stunts involving low prices, it would be preferable to completely close vulnerable regions to air traffic. Moreover, vulnerable airports near cities or with insufficient security provisions in place, as in the recent case of Linate near Milan – an airport that should have been closed down years ago – should not have a future. The unbalanced pursuit of economic growth, freedom for airline companies and the rolling back of government has, in connection with the sad events of 11 September, led to too little attention being paid, on the one hand, to the risk of industrial buildings collapsing and, on the other hand, to government supervision of access to airports by people with malicious intentions. It is not the first time that I am bringing these two matters to the attention of the Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Commission must step up its efforts to ensure a level playing field with greater cooperation between the stakeholders. Fishermen must be involved in framing and enforcing the rules within a system of zonal management, a system that will make these rules more acceptable and enforcement more effective. For effective monitoring and control, there must adequate budgetary and human resources. A fundamental concern in relation to the Commission’s proposals on the reform of the CFP is the proposal to open access to the North Sea and leave a sea area with severely depleted fish stocks managed purely by virtue of the TACs and quotas regime. Without committed investment in control and monitoring, the North Sea will be a potential free-for-all, which could decimate stocks further and kill off fragile fisheries-dependent communities. I therefore urge the Commission to take these concerns on board and ensure that there is a level playing field. Under no circumstances open up the North Sea when clearly the existing enforcement system is neither perceived as, nor proven to be, fair or sufficiently funded to ensure illegal fisheries are stamped out.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Conservative MEPs believe that corruption is wrong and should be rooted out at all levels. There are, however, ways and means of doing this. We believe that the European Arrest Warrant and the European Public Prosecutor unnecessarily impinge upon nation-states' own legal systems and are therefore undesirable. It is for this reason that we have abstained on the Rutelli Report. Report: Santini (A5-0405/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
In the fight for security from terrorism, we have rightly proclaimed that we are defending fundamental values but, if we compromise individual rights in the pursuit of security, we will have sacrificed some of what we hold so dear. In the last two years since Tampere, the programme of cooperation on justice matters has been heavily weighted to the security side of the scales – especially since 11 September with the anti-terrorism package. All this is necessary, but it is time to rebalance the work programme. At the Laeken Summit, Heads of Government should commit themselves to a thorough review of the degree of respect in practice for the standards we have signed up to in the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. There needs to be a programme to ensure observance of minimum standards of due process, fair trials in criminal proceedings and approximation of rights of defendants. We should project these standards in our international agreements because there are some worrying developments. In the UK, there are proposals for executive decisions for detention without trial and an attempt to avoid any significant degree of judicial review. In the United States, President Bush has signed an order providing for trial in military courts in the absence of fundamental safeguards for fair trial provided for in international law. The EU must not agree to any extradition agreement with the US whereby people could be convicted in these military tribunals. Finally, the case of the 14 British and Dutch plane-spotters detained for nearly five weeks in Greece without trial is extremely disturbing. They have been denied bail, the evidence has been presented in secret and there has been no transparent schedule of court hearings. They may be guilty at most of a misdemeanour. It will be a disgrace if the European arrest warrant is agreed this weekend and this situation has still not been resolved. I call, in particular, on Prime Minister Blair to withhold agreement if they have not been either charged or released by Friday.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Madrid is a summit of Heads of State and Government. But may I take this opportunity to point out in all modesty that the European Parliament has cultivated very close relations with Latin American parliamentarians for years now; in fact, the longest-standing relations between the European Parliament and other parliaments are with Latin America and date back to the early 1970s. How Latin America develops over the coming years and decades will also depend to a very considerable degree on its relations with Europe. I think that we underestimate our potential. I should like to make the point here that relations with Latin America must, above all, include a scientific and technical dimension, an industrial dimension, as we have with the United States –why not with Latin America as well? May I remind you that Europe's two biggest scientific institutes are in Latin America: the ESO or European Southern Observatory in Chile, which has done a great deal for astrophysics in Chile, and our space centre in Kourou, because French Guyana is also on Latin American soil. I also advocate intensive dialogue involving industry in Europe and Latin America. Something along these lines began with Mercosur and could be extended to the whole of Latin America. Mr Patten rightly referred to Kyoto and climate policy. If I had the time, I could work out what emissions trading might mean in the future for Latin America. The President has signalled to me that I do not have the time. If I did, I would work it out for you and you would be astounded at the possibilities it encompasses. In short, we have a great many opportunities for relations with Latin America. We must use them, not just talk about them! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, “Europe stands for ideals, values and principles. We must emphasise Europe’s spiritual history. Together, we must re-establish the values which unite Europe. Spiritual values have been disseminated from Europe throughout the globe. We must live with our consciences.” These were the words spoken three hours ago in this Chamber by the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel. In an extraordinarily edifying speech, characterised by wisdom, historical knowledge, an understanding of the human heart and insight into Europe’s spiritual and Christian heritage, he pointed to sources of inspiration for our work on human justice and human dignity. We should be grateful that there are Heads of State like Vaclav Havel in our Europe. I wish to discuss two matters. First of all, civil society. Vaclav Havel stated that, in Eastern Europe, the Communist regimes methodically destroyed civil society: national movements, churches and the independent trade unions. The same is happening in China in connection with the Falun Gong movement and with the Catholic and Protestant churches. It is happening with Buddhism in Tibet. We must never forget to defend civil society. I also want to mention the death penalty. Like my own country, Sweden, the EU bases its view of human beings upon the equal, unique and inviolable value of every human. On the basis of this principle, human beings should always have the chance to redeem themselves. Try telling that to the governments of the United States, Russia and China.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Convention has been meeting in this building since February, and in its sittings, the European institutions' lack of transparency, deficient openness to the public and inadequate democratic control have repeatedly, and rightly, been decried. None of this, though, seemed to have anything to do with Europol, an office whose tasks are decided on by the governments among themselves rather than by a majority in the Council, which is, by the way, itself not exactly the epitome of transparency and democracy. We, Europe's Parliament, are utterly excluded from any control or co-decision, and that is why I will say quite clearly, here and now, that it is a continuing scandal that the Member States' governments refuse to change this. Whilst democratic influence and control have been left out in the cold, though, Europol's competences have been extended, step by step, since 1998. Money-laundering and counter-terrorism were the watchwords when this was given renewed impetus in the aftermath of 11 September. Europol's functions are about to be extended again. It is already engaged in active preparations for enlargement. According to newspaper reports, new buildings have now been occupied at the Office's headquarters, and the first liaison officers from the candidate countries, for example Poland, have taken up their duties. All these breathtaking changes are taking place without Parliament being granted even the slightest opportunity to obtain information and exercise control. It is unable either to demand a debate on the Office's annual report, or to summon its director before the competent Parliamentary committee. Parliament is not even accorded the right to send two representatives to its Board of Management. As directly elected delegates, we are left to rely on newspapers for our information, and that, Mr Deprez, is why my group supports your call for the Belgian and Spanish initiative to be rejected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is a shame that Mr Patten had to leave so soon. I actually wanted to put my question to him. But I think that Mr Nielson is equally well placed to answer me because he has been standing by his colleague’s side and he also said that both Commissioners were responsible for the proposal. Mr Nielson, of course we here in Parliament share your aim of providing quicker aid to men and women, and raising the profile of the European Union. That goes without saying. But we had all agreed that what the Commission wanted to introduce now by way of reform had to be done jointly with us. When Mr Patten says in his presentation that either the Commission programme is accepted or we must make cuts, I find that highly displeasing. It is we who are the budgetary authority, or at least part of it, and I think that the Commission cannot simply say we shall make cuts or we shall have to make cuts. That, if you please, has to go through the budgetary procedure first and what is certain is that you will have to implement your reform programme jointly with us. I should like to know what your colleague meant by this threat.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hope that the future will bring increasingly frequent and effective dialogue between the different elements in Parliament, for once again, this morning, I was listening to Members speaking, and can be little – or rather no – doubt that the position of the was misinterpreted. We do not oppose the Paulsen report – we fully support it. There is a significant reason underlying our contribution, particularly regarding Article 5, which stems from the fact that, although this is a major, coherent instrument, its scope is still limited, for it concerns production measures and does not deal in any way with the commercial side of things. As a result, we European consumers will find ourselves continuing to buy meat and milk and their derivatives that are produced on the world markets using animal feedingstuffs which are in no way subject to the thresholds and limit values defined by the European Union, under a system which allows raw materials to be acquired on the international markets, where producers are free to mix all types of ingredients and formulations before selling their products on Union territory. We are calling for a comprehensive assessment of the issue precisely in order to afford better protection to farmers. In actual fact, a major measure such as the Paulsen report ends up having the adverse effect of opening the market to production systems whose quality is not sufficient to comply fully with the limits and threshold values which we require. This was the reason for our discussion in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, when all is said and done, we would not like a repetition of what usually occurs, which is that when it comes to major measures it is always the farmers who pay the price, when they are the only guarantors of a production/agricultural land ratio which Parliament must preserve at all costs. I therefore invite all the Members to discuss the issue responsibly. We have absolutely no desire to defend specific interests; we simply want a compliant production system which does not involve going outside the market with measures of this kind.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to congratulate the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council for their solid recommendations and, above all, for their proposals. Because it has been said that men do not usually get involved in discussions on women’s rights, I thought I might contribute the views of a contemporary politician and intellectual, Francis Fukuyama, to today’s debate. In an article entitled “If women ruled the world”, he maintains that if women were more involved in politics, the world would certainly not be so wedded to violence. Athena, the goddess of wisdom and war, may have been a female model in Ancient Greece, but the influence exercised by women today can act as a catalyst to stop militarisation and promote peace. There are, therefore, serious grounds, over and above justice between the sexes, for distributing public offices and political and economic power fairly and evenly between men and women. Women devote their entire lives to the endeavour to protect life and the environment through dialogue, reconciliation, an understanding of different views and resolving differences by peaceful means. These female virtues can offer an alternative to today’s culture of violence and institute a new political culture and a fairer and more prosperous society for everyone. That is why the Intergovernmental Conference must introduce into the Treaty the principle of balanced representation of women and men in all the institutions of the European Union and in all democratic institutions and political decision-making centres throughout the Community.

Political group: PSE