GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The imbalances among the various regions of Europe are the greatest threat to the project for the political and economic integration of the Union. The promotion of economic and social cohesion is a priority political objective of the Union (consolidated by the Maastricht Treaty on European Union into one of the three pillars of European integration). The Cohesion Fund has played a decisive role in lessening these asymmetries by supporting those Member States with greater structural difficulties. It will become even more important in the context of enlargement (from 2004, all the candidate countries should become eligible). I believe that the approach taken by the rapporteur in her report should have been more positive and less bureaucratic. I share her concerns regarding the 4.1% deficit seen in Portugal in 2001 (which thus does not conform to the macroeconomic criteria), which the present Portuguese Government inherited from the previous government. It would have been fairer to Portugal if the rapporteur had recognised the effort and the measures that the Portuguese Government has already taken, which have been praised by both the Commission and the Council. All these instruments are essential to comply with the principle of economic and social cohesion. The Cohesion Fund, like the other Structural Funds and the remaining Community policies, should continue along these lines. Without cohesion, the European ideal will be lost and will fail.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Barcelona Process was not lacking in good intentions or financial resources. Despite this, the outcome was meagre, which is very disappointing. There was too much gesture politics going on and too little capacity to carry out the plans. Three quarters of the committed funding never left the kitty. Instead of a reduction in the means, this will now lead to an increase, which is a little bizarre, to say the least. It makes no sense to budget for even higher amounts if the absorption capacity remains restricted and the Commission delegations are understaffed. It would be far more preferable if the European Union were to show its solidarity with the Mediterranean countries by opening up its markets more, not only for products from industry, but also for those from agriculture and horticulture. We have a very long way to go before a free-trade area is established. The economies of the partner countries are still very vulnerable. Their mutual trade is still being restricted and has protectionism written all over it. Additionally, the political distrust which exists between the partners must first be dispelled. The Barcelona Process can only succeed if the Mediterranean partners continue to work on democratisation. The human rights clauses in the Association Agreements should not remain hollow phrases. Any violations should be penalised by a drop in financial support. But if we reduce the amounts which cannot be spent anyway, then this will not make any impact whatsoever. We must bring our ambitions into line with the degree to which they can be implemented. The question is whether the report’s many sound wishes can all be realised at the same time. It is better to do one thing which is slightly inferior than to do a great deal of things which are downright inferior. Fine words and fine budgets are not enough to guarantee stability and welfare. It is about the willingness to carry out true political reform, and this is what the Barcelona Process still lacks.

Political group: ELDR
The asylum issue is a major political issue concerning fundamental democratic rights, the safeguarding of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual and the preservation of human dignity. The problem of political asylum seekers must be examined in this light alone and efforts to harmonize asylum policy come what may and turn it into a means of chipping away at fundamental human rights, reinforcing suppressive, policing measures and rebuilding fortress Europe must be blocked. It must not be used as a pretext for intensifying and strengthening the electronic filing systems created under Europol and Schengen, which target not only refugees but also the fundamental individual freedoms of the citizens of the EU themselves. We must take all the legislative and other measures needed to respect the rights of asylum seekers, by strictly applying the provisions of the Geneva Convention. We must respect and strengthen all the provisions on protecting and granting asylum to individuals or groups being persecuted in their countries by government, quasi-government or other groups on ideological, philosophical, political, religious, racial, cultural or other grounds by giving them guarantees and a dignified reception and living conditions. Asylum seekers in the Member States of the EU must be treated in a dignified and humane manner. We must also take proper account of all the parameters and peculiarities of their situation and of the dangers which threaten them should they return to their countries by introducing any protective measures required, even for those who do not satisfy the formal criteria for obtaining asylum, which criteria must be clearly defined in accordance with the principles of international law and fundamental human rights. Arbitrary and violent deportation is a common occurrence because of the applicant’s difficulty in resorting to the judicial authorities for protection, and the phenomenon of group deportations is intolerable and violates conventions on and the principles of human rights. We would like to highlight and draw attention to the fact that formulating even more harmonized criteria for granting asylum by gradually and effectively moving away from those laid down in the Geneva Convention and essentially replacing them with regulations such as those mentioned in the report, may have a negative and repressive impact. In this sense, we deplore the so-called “policy of burden sharing” which conceals a blatant attempt to relieve certain powerful states in the EU from the “burden” of receiving large numbers of refugees and relocating them to other countries. Finally, we firmly believe that the best and most fundamental way to address the refugee issue is to maintain the right conditions for peace and the social, economic and democratic development in every country in the world. Until these conditions are guaranteed and while they are being undermined by major economic and military interests which destroy the structures, societies, rights and dignity of the people as they please and for their own benefit, then there will continue to be an ever rising tide of uprooted and persecuted individuals.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is unlikely that a government that imprisons its own journalists should be democratic to such an extent as to guarantee a fair trial in accordance with international standards, and so I shall have more confidence in monitoring. To insist on the principle of the freedom of the press is obviously right and proper, but I remember the comments when the first law on the freedom of the press was passed in the Soviet Union. The journalists then asked: who will give us the money to publish newspapers? The matter has still not been settled. I mention this problem since our draft resolution notes the decline imposed on the press in Russia and also deplores the attacks on diversity and freedom. I should like to add that the problem of the press is part of the struggle for power. In Russia the press subsidised by millionaires put Mr Yeltsin into the presidency, but the political line of that time is not to the taste of today’s leaders and the same millionaires are now either in the dock or abroad. Freedom of the press certainly played a part in the event, which, nevertheless, is primarily a stage in the struggle for power. I should also like to add that media science increasingly points to the so-called editorial routine as something that affects the free press. Individual journalists accept work where they can find it, and they adapt to the prevailing editorial climate and ideas even when these contrast with their own personal ideas. Turning conformists into saints, however, is not a job that can be regulated by resolutions. Here, of course, I should like to remind you of point number 10 in the draft resolution concerning conflict of interests, an issue that, as we all know, has been talked about a lot recently on the occasion of the Italian elections. It is said that governments should keep a scrupulous eye on conflicts of interest and ambiguous relations between editors and the proprietor. However, when the president and the proprietor are the same person, what can be done, Mr President?

Political group: PSE
As can be seen in its explanatory statement, this report appears, in substance, to be trying to keep everyone happy: the Commission, which is implementing the deregulation; the Member States which are – for the time being – responsible for ensuring safety; the major airlines, upon whom there is no question of imposing overly restrictive – and, above all, excessively costly – regulations; the low cost airlines, upon whom the report is seeking to impose certain minimum standards, as long as these do not affect their profits... This is undoubtedly an example of what the European authorities can do in this area: they are setting standards for work, rest and time on board for crews and commercial flight personnel. These EU-wide standards may offer personnel a minimum of guarantees and that is why we did not vote against the report. But this minimum is so minimalist that it is certainly the most that we could expect from the European authorities, which, above all, do not want to cause difficulties for employers in the air transport sector.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my speech also concerns the cod fishing crisis. Researchers in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea have found that cod stocks in the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the Skagerrak are threatened by total collapse. They demand a total ban. Are we listening to their advice and suggestions? No, we are trying to find all manner of arguments for avoiding taking our responsibility. I think it is outrageous to hear members here in this house, above all the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, blaming the Commission when it is doing its best to accept its responsibility. The ICES verdict on the Baltic is possibly a little more difficult to interpret, but it seems as though they are looking to start out from the most optimistic point of view regarding, for example, illicit fishing. Sweden has decided, however, that a unilateral fishing ban on cod will apply, for we are living by the precautionary principle. If we do not do this, it might mean the complete destruction of the future of the fishing industry. My question to the Commission now is: does the Commission fully support the Swedish unilateral fishing ban? Can Commissioner Fischler repeat what he said when he was in Sweden recently, to the effect that he also supports compensation for fishermen?

Political group: Verts-ALE
The text we are debating today certainly affects us more than most since it is about protecting children against sex tourism. The European Commission has drawn up a report of the measures which have been taken in this field. In view of the results, it is clear that the European Union and its Member States must increase their efforts to combat sex tourism and the exploitation of children. The Member States must pass extra-territorial legislation allowing them to carry out investigations, prosecute and punish any individual guilty of crimes committed abroad and linked to child sex abuse. We must go even further and establish measures such as a coherent child protection policy by creating a new general legal base in the context of the next revision of the Treaty, with adequate Community funding. I also think it is essential to incorporate the rights of the child into the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. In conjunction with this, we must take action at grass-roots level by encouraging travel agencies, tour operators, transport and advertising companies to set up self-regulation systems designed to combat child sex tourism, and by creating free helplines for children in distress in every Member State. Exemplary penalties must be imposed on the people guilty of such monstrous behaviour. The fact is, when people are in a foreign country, in an unfamiliar region, they can act in complete anonymity and convince themselves that child abuse is less reprehensible in a different social and cultural context, and that the moral principles in force in their own country do not apply. That is intolerable! We must not be blind to the fact that the Internet facilitates these ‘practices’. This is why Parliament calls on the Commission to assess the link between child pornography on the Internet and the growth in sex tourism, and to propose practical measures against the phenomenon! It is also essential to recognise that prostitution in general in the developing countries is very often due to poverty, affecting children, women and men. We must also fight on those grounds because there will always be unscrupulous people around to exploit human poverty. I want to end by reaffirming that children, this world’s future, are one of the most vulnerable groups in the population, with specific needs that have to be protected. We must never forget that every individual’s childhood and the particular circumstances of their family and social circle in large measure determines their adult life. Consequently, all the European Union and Member State institutions must be inspired in their action by the protection of children’s rights as recognised in the United Nations Convention of 20 November 1989.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I would like to thank President-in-Office, Mr Fogh Rasmussen for the programme that he has presented. It will be a presidency which will differ fundamentally from previous Danish presidencies. Cooperation has been expanded in a great many areas and, on top of this, there is the main task that everyone has emphasised, that of successfully negotiating enlargement with no less than ten candidate countries. We all have a great political and moral responsibility, and it is of course a prerequisite for success that all parties have the necessary desire to compromise. The candidate countries have undergone a fundamental restructuring. They have made great sacrifices, but they are now essentially ready. The ball is now largely in the EU’s own court and I think that the Commission has provided a particularly reasonable scheme for funding enlargement in the initial years, and one which clearly separates enlargement from future agricultural reform. This, I feel, is very sensible. It will now be up to the fifteen heads of government to come up with the goods. We will now see whether the EU currently has Heads of State with the necessary quality and strength and with visions that extend beyond short-sighted national considerations. Narrow-mindedness and neo-nationalism must not place obstacles in the way of enlargement. The second great challenge is the World Summit in Johannesburg and, here, the EU must go on the offensive and courageously show its solidarity with the developing countries by spearheading the creation of the global agreement, which the President-in-Office also mentioned, with practical political obligations and with a precise timetable. There will be a great need to put pressure on the USA, which apparently believes that hunger, poverty and terror can be solved by military means and by reserving financial support for those regimes which passively go along with the American script. I hope that the Danish Presidency will go on the offensive and choose the path of real solidarity with the Third World. There is also a link here with the EU’s asylum and immigration policy, which after all is not just about illegal immigration, as one might sometimes believe. The strident negative debate on foreigners in certain countries should be replaced by a common European policy based on humanitarianism, in which foreigners are not discriminated against socially, in which conventions are respected and in which it is not only members of a well-educated elite who have access to Europe as refugees or for the purpose of family reunification. We must not build a ‘Fortress Europe’ that is based on lowest common denominators but, rather, we should create a link between the much-praised globalisation and our legislation as regards foreigners. With such a policy – and only with such a policy –positive cooperation from the European Parliament can be anticipated. In saying this, I should like to express the hope and confidence that the Danish Presidency will solve the tasks ahead of it, ideally in close cooperation with Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the Middle East is currently experiencing its darkest period since, or even before, the signing of the Oslo Accords. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, in this context, it does not make much sense to talk of a policy of impartiality. We are not taking sides against Israel by condemning outright the policy of its current government. This was a policy that the statesman Yitzhak Rabin had the insight and courage to turn his back on, an action which cost him his life. Sadly, now that all prospects of a just peace for the Palestinian people have been dashed, bloody attacks are being made on innocent Israeli civilians, which exceed the boundaries of legitimate resistance by an occupied people. These intolerable actions only serve to increase the hatred and feelings of vengeance. A vicious circle was precisely what we feared most in the event of Ariel Sharon’s election, and this is what we are now caught up in. I support the comments made by Commissioner Patten. We must concentrate on doing all we possibly can to help to find a way out of this impasse that is causing so many deaths. In this spirit, and I repeat what Mr Barón Crespo has said, we can only welcome with great pleasure and profound admiration the eminently dignified and courageous work that a group of key figures, both Israeli and Palestinians, ministers, members of parliament, writers and lawyers, carried out this summer. The outcome of this collaboration was the publication of a joint declaration in which they made a commitment to work together, on the basis of principles that are acknowledged by the international community, to restore trust and hope in peace. In conjunction with the laudable efforts of our diplomatic staff, I propose that we lend our support to this initiative by using all the resources at our disposal, by inviting, for example, the two main players – the former Israeli minister, Yossi Beilin, and the Palestinian minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo – or by awarding them the Sakharov Prize, or even by setting up a European committee to support their joint declaration. In doing so, we shall, in our capacity as the European Parliament, be making a real contribution to peace. Thank you in advance. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, my group voted for the Watson report, which is an excellent and very comprehensive one. But it proposes very radical changes which can potentially pose problems for some of the Member States, particularly those in the front line of terrorism. Without a clear and mutually accepted definition of terrorism, states must be able to take whatever measures they deem appropriate to deal with these serious threats. However, this does not preclude the Member States from identifying those areas where there are difficulties in cooperation between Member States and finding ways to improve such cooperation. Effective measures need to be introduced to prevent the formation and activities of violent groups in Europe and collaboration between such groups. I commend Mr Watson on his report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Vitorino, it is important for the e-commerce market that we can conduct pan-European trade in an electronic environment. No barriers to the market should be set up, either legislative or technological. A Europe without borders is to the benefit of consumers. If the amendments made by the committee to the report now being discussed were to be rejected tomorrow, the future of ecommerce in Europe would be in jeopardy. Ladies and gentlemen, as nice as it would be for the employment situation for our legal profession, it would be an enormous burden for small- and medium-sized enterprises in Europe to take account of the legislation that exists in all EU countries and the signatories to the Locarno Agreement when they are engaged in e-commerce. Presumably this would also mean that any respectable companies that want to be responsible and look after their consumers’ interests, will not become involved in ecommerce at all. As a result, there will be less on offer to the consumer as a whole, as Lord Inglewood earlier mentioned. On the other hand, irresponsible rascals would remain in the market and they would look after the consumer only until the clink of money is heard in the seller’s bank account, and no longer. Ladies and gentlemen, according to a proposal by a consumer organisation, marketing could be directed at just one country or just certain markets, which is not technically possible in the world of the Internet. The electronic world knows no national frontiers. Besides, this would discriminate against consumers, as the consumer must have the right to order products from anywhere to go anywhere. This kind of interpretation would probably also run counter to the principle of the free movement of goods and services as referred to in Article 49 of the Treaty of Rome. A company engaged in e-commerce cannot normally even know what country the consumer is in. It would therefore be impossible to require a company to find out beforehand about the consumer protection legislation that exists in the customer’s country, as that country could be anywhere. Instead it would be reasonable to create alternative procedures for resolving disputes. The e-commerce players should, however, have the right to choose between normal court procedures or an alternative way to resolve the dispute. I would also ask the Council and the Commission to still take time to reflect whether it would be worth considering this charge-back mechanism, which Mrs de Palacio mentioned again in her amendment to the report. It could increase bureaucracy from the point of view of the consumer. In this the committee’s position is not absolute but it would seem that the majority in this Chamber support it and that tomorrow it will be upheld as Parliament’s position, which is a good thing.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to thank the Commissioner for the thorough answer he was willing to give me and from which it transpires that, naturally, further elaboration was required regarding the policy currently adopted by the Commission. Nevertheless, I do not fully share the view that competition would therefore not be disrupted, although I have taken note of the fact that you now also provide for a contractual exemption clause. As far as I am concerned, Commissioner, there is still great concern not only from me but also from within the sector with regard to the lack of clarity which currently – fourteen days prior to the coming into force of this regulation – exists regarding the guidelines on what is and is not allowed. Although your explanation has shed some light on the matter, I think it is appropriate to also inform the sector of this. My question in this respect is why should the system be changed if so far, its application has not resulted in any complaints? Is there too little belief in self-regulation and does one want to push this regulation through at all costs within a sector which, in fact, is already having a hard time?

Political group: ELDR