GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mrs Carlotti’s excellent report is both an optimistic declaration of confidence in the potential of the Cotonou Agreement and a call on the responsibility of each and every one of us to make sure that this potential does not end up as yet one more lost opportunity, but rather that the most ambitious plans of the agreement come to fruition. The report underlines that Cotonou is a major step forward in the process set out some decades ago for cooperation between the European Union and a growing number of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, with the aim of aiding their development. It reminds us that we are facing a process that has matured and that has also adapted to the current situation. Europeans have not granted this new agreement to our partners, but have fully and rigorously negotiated it with them. This is, therefore, an association agreement between partners that are equals in their mutual respect, recognition and rights. It is an agreement which, in addition to its economic and commercial component, introduces an innovative political dimension that should allow the ACP-EU Community, united in its proclaimed democratic values with a great capacity for influence in its pursuit of a just, balanced, free, lawful, peaceful world where prosperity is reasonably divided and shared, to burst onto the world stage. However, all the confidence expressed in the report is naturally conditional upon our responsibility to take advantage of the provisions of the agreement. Hence the appeals of the rapporteur, first of all, to those Member States who do not consider the ratification of the Cotonou agreement a priority. She also calls on the European Parliament to give the implementation of the Cotonou agreement the attention it deserves. She calls upon those MEPs who act as Parliament’s representatives in the ACP-EU Joint Assembly to act responsibly. She also calls upon us to make sure this Assembly is truly parliamentary and well balanced, and to commit ourselves to acting in a way that shows solidarity, and is fully democratic within this Assembly. The report also highlights our ACP partners’ responsibilities to achieve what is set out in the agreement so that the Joint Assembly can be set up once and for all. They will then need to adjust themselves to democratic standards, the respect for human rights and the Rule of Law, as guarantees for their own progress and to effectively contribute to a world of stability and peace which is the objective of the Cotonou agreement.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my vote on the report on Cyprus should be seen as a protest against its lack of balance, because I am not opposed to the entry of Cyprus to the European Union. On the contrary, I am keen to see Cyprus in, but I could not accept this unbalanced report, especially paragraph 4, and the failure to insist on at least on the desirability of having a political settlement prior to accession. In addition, the report called for the repatriation of settlers which presumably includes their children born and raised in Cyprus. Whatever the solution on settlers, and it is a thorny issue along with land restitution on both sides, this is too harsh without giving a qualification. The European Parliament has failed in its duty to reflect a balanced approach which I very much regret. Of course the Republic of Cyprus is the internationally recognised state but we should do more to recognise the rights as well as the duties of the Turkish-Cypriot community.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Communist Party of Greece is radically opposed to the directive on the release of genetically modified organisms because we believe that, instead of safeguarding public health and the environment, it safeguards the profits of a few multinationals which, apart from anything else, will gain a stranglehold on the production of foodstuffs. In the name of scientific development, to quote the huge multinationals in the food industry, man is attempting to intervene in the genetic codes of living organisms at a time when no one can guarantee the impact modified species will have; it is not predictable or immediately obvious and only becomes apparent once havoc has been wreaked. Even though we consider the amendments made by the European Parliament to be extremely positive, there is a serious risk of their having extremely negative results because labels shift the responsibility for deciding if a product is suitable away from the relevant government agencies and on to the consumer, who is not always able and does not always have the knowledge needed to make that decision. In addition, even if these proposals were to have some degree of success, the benefits would be short lived because, with contamination and the Commission proposing that products containing 1% genetically modified organisms should be considered clean, every product would be contaminated in a few years' time, especially plant products, as a result of cross-pollination. What really frightens us is that this attempt focuses on reassuring public opinion, glossing over the risks and fostering a climate of acceptance of modified organisms. It will benefit the multinational companies in the food sector and swell their profits, while leaving dangerous leeway for undermining public health and the equilibrium of the ecosystem.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, laundered money is the reward for organised crime and political corruption. From an economic point of view, it represents an extremely unhealthy addition to the international money supply and helps to distort aid and reconstruction policies. This has happened in numerous cases which have already come to light. We have proposed a number of amendments in a bid to harmonise and tighten up supervisory arrangements and sanctions. However, crime is always moving into new areas, such as the trafficking in immigrants, trafficking in human organs etc., and is always finding new ways of laundering the proceeds. A great deal of work needs to be done. We feel that the revised directive does not go far enough, although we do, of course, support it. Unbridled globalisation calls for ever-increasing political regulation, coordination, harmonisation and supranational bodies, on a scale and to a standard which is commensurate with organised crime. Take the example, the extremely important example, of offshore activities; the OECD recently published lists of the countries and methods used to launder money and the frightening amounts involved. We think the Union should help countries, whatever the country and whatever its political regime, which are used to hide illegal activities behind offshore legislation. It should help them to harmonise and comply with common rules, even the hopelessly inadequate rules which prevail in the Member States of the Union. We can do this perfectly well, without any particularly illegal infringements, by including clauses and arrangements to foster harmonisation in trade and other cooperation agreements with these countries. Otherwise, I think we are wasting our time.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, you are right, Commissioner, to bring pressure to bear on those Member States who have failed to transpose the flora and fauna directive, and that includes the Member State I come from. You are right to do so because demands are being made on our natural habitats, and we must transpose these Natura 2000 regions at long last. However, if that happens then of course we will have a huge need for LIFE-Natura funding, because of course we will also have to finance conservation measures in these areas, which are ultimately to be designated, and that at a time when we cannot even stabilise the things we have achieved with LIFE I and LIFE II. Given this situation, i.e. that flora and fauna areas now have to be transposed with a vengeance, we will definitely need more money for LIFE as well. This brings me on to the subject of the Council, which is a past master when it comes to decisions on expenditure, particularly in the sphere of foreign policy, which we then have to find the money for in our budget. I need only mention the aid for Bosnia – we are cutting back on all fronts there. On the other hand, the Council refuses to take a more long-term view and increase the LIFE budget by what is in fact a derisory amount in the context of the overall budget, for an area which, when all is said and done, is all about us creating sustainable development. I cannot fathom this at all and expressly call upon all my fellow MEPs to support Mrs Lienemann’s motion on raising the funding to EUR 850 million.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, all I want to say is that state called FYROM exists only because of Greek support at the moment. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0246/2001) by Mr Miranda, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation on the third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries to be held in Brussels from 14 to 20 May 2001 (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President, congratulations to Parliament for also voting in favour of keeping derogations regarding the importing of alcoholic products and the continued application of excise duty payments. I voted against this measure. I often imagine that when the Ministers for Finance see one of us, a citizen – many of which are pensioners – drinking wine, whisky, vodka or any sort of alcohol, they say “Goody goody! More duty. This will be good for the balance sheet”. But is it right that the tax systems of our States should benefit every single time we drink a glass of wine? I do not think so! I therefore voted against the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to address two messages to the President—in-Office of the Council and the President of the Commission. The first is that we cannot and must not end this debate without a serious and rigorous political commitment, in order to put an end once and for all to the deaths, exploitation and trafficking in human beings, in other words, to the terrible human tragedies which we see daily on the southern Mediterranean border. Commitments rather than words. To the wave of 528 immigrants who a few days ago landed on the Andalusian coasts and in the Canary Islands, we must also add the approximately 70 who, it appears, have died trying to reach the coasts of Sicily. It is very possible, moreover, that today or tomorrow we will continue to add to this doleful list. The second message is that the European Union, as such, cannot deal with common immigration and asylum policies unless the agreements which the Member States adopt, either in interesting meetings such as the one that took place in La Baule, which may lead to the beginning of strengthened cooperation in this field, or in the meetings of the Council of Ministers, are not then reflected in cooperative policies which lead to the burdens and responsibilities being shared, both from an economic point of view, and in terms of human and material resources. I believe, therefore, that we need also to provide, for example, for the need to create a European fund for the repatriation of illegal immigrants. There are some countries, such as my own, Spain, which face high costs in cases of repatriation. Having said this, it is essential also that countries of origin and transit take a much more responsible attitude, and particularly those countries with whom we have association agreements, which should fulfil all the terms of those agreements and not just the economic ones. Equally, within the framework of these agreements, the Commission and the Council should appeal firmly and insistently to countries which, as in the case of Morocco or Tunisia, are the origin of the tragic events I have referred to.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to thank Mrs Schroedter for drawing up an important report. Measures to achieve economic balance have been inadequate. Differences in levels of prosperity between regions have even increased to some extent. Differences in levels of unemployment have also to be taken into serious consideration when planning regional and structural policy. Commitment on the part of small and medium-sized enterprises to projects, and targeting structural actions at the most disadvantaged regions are important areas of emphasis. Furthermore, regional development must be supported by other areas of policy, such as agricultural, taxation and transport policy. I agree with many of the other speakers that GDP is not the only criterion to use when determining eligible areas. Permanent handicaps due to difficult natural conditions must equally be taken into account. For example, an exceptionally sparse population, migration, an ageing population, long distances, and a cold or hot climate cause permanent problems. In the future we shall have to pay very special attention to the issue of strengthening rural vitality and diversity. If Union enlargement is to take place, cohesion policy will need to be strengthened. At the same time we have to remember that regional differences are not going to disappear because new poor regions will be joining the Union. Enlargement must not come about at the expense of the more disadvantaged areas but through united efforts. As Mr Caveri said, the simplification and clarification of regional and structural policy also remain a continual challenge. The administrative load must be lightened, for example, by switching to the ‘one fund’ principle. It is important that all the Union’s resources should be efficiently utilised, even in the remotest regions. Together we must ensure that the whole of the area of the Union is included in the single market and enjoys the benefits which that brings with it.

Political group: ELDR
As part of the European Parliament’s objective to be proactive in terms of the participation of women in the decision-making bodies of the various organisations, the report by Mrs Miet Smet is an important milestone, and I am pleased to support the report in this House. It is extremely important to implement strategies which seek to promote a more balanced representation within social consultation bodies. Within these bodies, decisions are taken that are crucial for women, concerning equal opportunities in the workplace and prospects for career progression. In order to protect women’s interests, we therefore need to compile accurate statistical data, which is the first essential step in achieving a genuinely balanced representation. The increased presence of women will thus help to create new points of view on all the policies defined by the social partners. This report is heading in this direction and must be given backing so that the European Parliament can gain further credibility in terms of its objectives. This will require the cooperation of social partners, and particularly of employer organisations whose efforts, it must be said, are lacking in this area. It is clear that this report is also applicable to the framework of enlargement, and that it is important to start to involve the candidate countries immediately in the process of making the presence of women more balanced. - Report Hulthèn (A5-0237/2002)

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much for your answer. The problem with the current regulations governing asylum applications lies not with the regulations themselves and with our letting in too many refugees because, in Europe, we have both the resources and a moral responsibility to receive people in need of protection. Instead, the problem is the people smuggling through which unscrupulous traders entice people to try to make their way in by unlawful routes. Our own regulations, which make it difficult to apply for, and obtain, visas, also mean that there are more and more traffickers in human beings. That is not how we should arrange matters. The Council has also produced inhumane proposals for border forces and for free zones in third countries where we should keep refugees seeking asylum. That is not something of which I approve. I believe we should have an arrangement that strengthens the asylum procedure. One method is contained in the proposal that has been submitted by the researcher Gregor Noll and about which I have put my question. It is a proposal I believe is well worth examining. I should like to ask the Commissioner what advantages and disadvantages he sees in the researcher’s, Gregor Noll’s, proposal that asylum should be sought in the EU countries’ embassies around the world. It would be interesting to hear the answer to that question.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, although this does not mean that I approve of the policy of the Chechen nationalist leaders, I wish to say on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we are disgusted at the vile deeds the Russian army has committed in Chechnya. This is a despicable war, whose prime victims are the people of Chechnya, but also the young Russian soldiers. We are also appalled, however, at the attitude of the western powers, in particular the European ones. The British Prime Minister’s recent visit to Moscow, the way he toadied to the butcher-in-chief Putin, reflect the general attitude of the western powers. What public opinion sees is a few declarations condemning certain aspects of the war in Chechnya; what we are actually seeing is political and financial support for the Kremlin. Any western loans that have not been hijacked by the Yeltsin clan can thus be spent on pursuing the war against Chechnya. Many of the parties represented here in Parliament form part of governments that are pursuing this policy of conciliation and support. Under those circumstances, the vote in Parliament can only serve as a fig-leaf for the hypocrisy of the European big powers and their profound complicity with the crimes the Russian leaders have committed in Chechnya. Freedom of the press in Serbia:

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, with regret I have to inform the House of the arrest yesterday in Moscow of Vladimir Alexandrovich Gusinsky, chief executive of the Most-Media group of television, radio and newspaper outlets. Mr Gusinsky is a leading Russian community leader, being chairman of the Russian Jewish Congress and deputy chairman of the World Jewish Congress. This morning he is in what is known as a general purpose cell in Butyrsky prison where conditions are such that they must be left to your imagination. Mr Gusinsky's media activities were the only ones permitted to criticise Mr Putin and his government. His independent television is the only one that questions the behaviour of Russian troops in Chechnya. His programme Dolls, based on Britain's Spitting Image, satirises the President, something which supposedly causes him great irritation. His radio station Moscow Echo was selected by President Clinton a few days ago for the only substantive interview that he gave to a Russian outlet. On 11 May Mr Gusinsky's places of work were raided by so-called tax police – men in ski masks and camouflage outfits carrying Kalashnikov rifles. There are few Russians who do not see a connection between Gusinsky's criticisms and the heavy-handed treatment now being meted out to him. Now we have this arrest and Mr Putin says he knows nothing about it. This latest event leaves Russia teetering on the brink. Either Mr Putin backs down and releases Mr Gusinsky, or we shall have to conclude that Russia's brave attempt to establish a free press has turned out a failure and their democracy an illusion. The consequences of this will be devastating. It will mean goodbye Council of Europe, goodbye Partnership for Peace, farewell Tacis and a warm welcome to a new arms race. The European Parliament must do what it can to avert this catastrophe. I ask you, Mr President, to confer with your colleagues so that the whole range of EU-Russia relations can be investigated, debated and our influence brought to bear not least on the turbulent Mr Putin, who is putting us all in danger. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners. ladies and gentlemen, enlargement is just around the corner and we continually speak of finance and various programmes for the new Member States, but we forget that action is also needed in the border areas of our new neighbours and for these new neighbours themselves. For that reason, my group and I want future border areas to receive more attention. That could be done, for example, by strengthening cross-border cooperation under the TACIS programme. If that is not done there will be tension, and a good example of that is Kaliningrad. It is not just a matter of the region’s isolation: the social and economic differences between it and its neighbours are enormous. For this more money is needed right away. Another good example is the Northern Dimension. We must vigorously support it, and, for that reason, my group has proposed an extra EUR 10 million for cross-border cooperation under the TACIS programme. This has had the full support of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. A third example is nuclear safety. For that we are proposing EUR 25 million. We all understand why. I have a question for the Commission. Implementation of action under TACIS has produced some very poor results. You must agree that it will be an important project for years to come. Could you say how you intend to improve the situation and describe to us the development strategy the Commission has for transboundary cooperation? I then have a question for the Council. It is not acceptable that from one year to the next the European Union undertakes new commitments under Section IV of the budget, without putting more money into it. That weakens the credibility of our foreign policy. Can you give us your opinion on this? If the Council makes promises with regard to every crisis without considering the financial implications, we will reach a dead end. What is your solution?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would also like to express my gratitude for the countless expressions of friendship and solidarity I have received from practically every part of the world, from all the institutions – and I note that the Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs de Palacio, is here – and from many many Members of this House, from all the political groups without exception, following the delivery of the package from Bologna. Mr President, I believe that the institutions must not be intimidated by these acts and that, today more than ever, we must continue to work in favour of a united Europe – taking account of the priorities which the Irish Presidency will present to us the day after tomorrow – in favour of a Constitution for Europe; Europe wants and needs a Constitution, Mr President, a Constitution which must include all of us. Mr President, I believe it is important that, in view of the threat of terrorism, which affects us all equally – and I believe it is a good time to recognise and express, as a Spaniard, my gratitude for the constant encouragement we have received from the European Parliament in our fight against the terrorist group ETA – we have to continue united, and the response must also be from us all equally. And as Mr Titley said, that response must be calm and serene, and not hysterical, mobilising all our efforts and our determination so that freedom – and I would like to point out, Mr President, that this is the European citizens’ House of freedom – is not savagely, and with impunity, violated by barbarity, which is the only thing the terrorist movements represent. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE