GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
My group, the Confederal Group of the , does not support the report by the Committee on Citizens' Freedom and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on the European arrest warrant. Obviously, if we want to promote unification and deal with increasingly international challenges such as terrorism and drugs, we need to create a single area of justice, but this needs to be based on safeguarding and broadening democratic rights. However, the European arrest warrant, especially in the hasty and thoughtless manner in which it is being pushed forward: a) reflects pressure from the USA rather than the maturity of endogenous procedures in the European Union; b) is being extended to a broad range of offences unconnected with terrorism, rather than being confined to the urgent challenges caused by terrorism; c) is being imposed arbitrarily, rather than through consultation with civil society; d) suffocates and restricts the area of justice of the Member States. This being the case, we are concerned that an arbitrary European structure may be created with serious democratic shortcomings.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September last year, its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said, and I quote: ‘The last twelve months have been very painful for those of us who believe in collective answers to our common problems and challenges’. It was a time when many voices in the political world, in the media and a large proportion of public opinion believed that the United Nations was failing in some way. Subsequent developments, in Iraq in particular, have demonstrated that things are never simple, and the current situation can be described by means of the lyrics of a Spanish song which say ‘neither with you nor without you is there any relief for my pain’. There is no such relief either with the United Nations – which demonstrated, not in Iraq, but in relation to previous terrible crises, in Rwanda for example, its powerlessness to prevent tragic outcomes – or without the United Nations, as demonstrated at the moment by this ridiculous impasse of an intervention which has no political solution in a country such as Iraq. Our group's position on the Laschet report has been one of broad agreement, with the emphasis on certain fundamental aspects. The first is a strong commitment to principles and values. In response to the idiotic criticism of those people who believe this to be idealism, we could reply that values are interests. In our societies and in the whole world, the application of principles and values is our principal interest. While, moreover, we are talking about lesser interests, we can state that the material contribution of the European Union and its countries is so great and so disproportionate to its political weight within the UN system that the European Union is obliged to commit itself to making progress towards a modification of the current state of affairs. There are two ways of doing this: one is the establishment of a common and strong European Union foreign and defence policy; the other is to make progress towards a European Union presence on the Security Council in a positive way and on the basis of speeding up the current constitution-building process, which ensures that the voice of its peoples, by means of their representatives, are respected by governments and that we establish as soon as possible a European Constitution which allows us to implement a common foreign and security policy worthy of the name.

Political group: PSE
We Moderates believe it is very important for people to have access to those documents we politicians discuss within the EU. It is on the basis of their opportunities for keeping track of legislative work that people can evaluate elected representatives and subsequently make decisions in general elections. The EU institutions can provide information about which decisions are made, and how, but it is the right of the independent mass media to make judgments themselves concerning current affairs and to decide what they are to provide information about. It is we politicians who must take responsibility for giving out political messages and political information, something that obviously applies both to choosing the points at issue and setting them out before people. We Moderates believe that people should have access to information. The EU should not, however, make use of artificial channels such as sports events to put forward political messages. We Moderates are therefore voting against the above-mentioned report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am going to talk almost exclusively about the maintenance of the Irish Box, since it illustrates the poles of opinion dividing clearly defined parties; despite this, Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries had managed to adopt a report which I believe clearly combines the interests of the different parties since, on the one hand, it responds to the concern of a majority to protect sensitive areas from irresponsible fishing, and on the other, maintains that it is necessary to eliminate any discrimination suffered by Community fleets of any Member State. The maintenance of the Irish Box is not justified from either a scientific point of view or a legal point of view; it consists of a political concession granted to a country 18 years ago, to make it possible to reach an agreement on the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Union. The restriction of access to a fishing area cannot be extended indefinitely, particularly if it affects a specific fleet. Several judgments clearly indicate that the rules relating to equal treatment laid down in Community legislation not only prohibit explicit discrimination on grounds of nationality, but also prohibit any disguised form of discrimination by means of the application of differentiation criteria which have the same effect in practice. The transitional period for Spain's accession to the European Union ended in December 2002, and from January this year all restrictions should have disappeared. From a scientific point of view, any measure for the conservation of resources is justified, provided that is not discriminatory. In the case of the Irish Box, the measures advocated by some people go even further than the initiatives recently taken to protect cod stocks, a species whose situation cannot be compared with the situation of angler fish, hake or john dory in the Irish Box. The Act of Accession to the European Union by Spain and Portugal contains the explicit decision to remove all restrictions of access to Community waters in December 2002; legally, for reasons of legislative hierarchy which everybody, from the legal expert to the uninitiated in law, understand, the Regulations of 94 and 95 cannot replace the Act of Accession. All fishing areas considered sensitive, without exception, must be protected and dealt with in the same way by means of technical measures, including by means of bans, but without discrimination. Those of us who vote against Amendment No 20 tomorrow, Mr President, want sustainable fishing resources, but also equality for all countries, discrimination against nobody and we are opting for Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
I approved Parliament’s draft legislative resolution seeking to extend the facility allowing Member States to apply reduced rates of VAT for certain labour-intensive services, in particular the building industry. This text is far from satisfactory. It is merely a stopgap compared with the opinion given by Parliament on 4 December 2003, which called for the application of reduced taxes to be made permanent and to extend it to the catering industry and to cultural products. It will at least, though, allow the Member States concerned to extend a trial that demonstrated positive effects on employment and the strength of SMEs and the self-employed targeted by these measures. Despite national studies, the Commission is not convinced by the first three years of trials. This extension should be able to convince them. Nevertheless, we cannot be content with closing the legal gaps on an ad-hoc basis. I hope that the Council will be aware of the impact that these measures have on the economy and on land-use planning and adopt the directive amended by Parliament on 4 December 2003 and give Member States the choice to apply reduced rates of VAT to the catering industry.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is a matter of regret that Parliament has found it impossible to construct a resolution for today's debate. It is obvious from the debate here that we could in fact have constructed a resolution on a wide range of issues on which we agree. We would, of course, have had to leave aside a lot of the self-justification that we all tend to engage in on all sides. I oppose the war and I continue to oppose its outcome and the direction which Iraq is taking at the present time. However, we must seek to reconstruct confidence in a law-based world order. We cannot do that by seeking to justify ourselves in terms of our attitudes to the war. We have to do it by, in the first place, seeking to construct a unity in the European Union. We have to find a middle ground between those who see a need for a unipolar world and those who see the need for a multipolar world. There is no way out of this. The European Union has to address this issue. It could give a lead in trying to do this and I hope that when they meet next week the leaders of our groups will seek to put in place some mechanism to enable Parliament to address this matter. We cannot seriously ask the people to support us in the European elections next year and at the same time pretend we do not have a role and that we have nothing to say about the direction the world is going in. This is of the utmost importance. We are talking about war and peace. Life is still cheap in the Middle East and we will continue to count the cost of the recent war for a very long time. We need to get to grips with our different world views. We need to get to grips with the United States and persuade them that a law-based world order is far better than a Pax Americana. In their interests and in our interests it is essential that we do this as a matter of urgency.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have just one additional question. What constitutes ‘innocent passage’ by a passenger boat through a strait like this?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Minister, I listened carefully to the reply that you gave and I too am pleased at the decision taken yesterday by the Council of Ministers for Social Affairs. I also noted that you attributed the responsibility of many of our current problems to the European Commission, because, as you said, the Commission has not submitted for your consideration any measures to deal with the very serious situation which we are in. I would like you to clarify two points – the first is on effective sanctions, in the event that the rules are flouted, as happened with yesterday’s agreement. I would like you to provide clarification on this point. I would also like you to explain the situation of non-British employees working in establishments in the rest of Europe between 2004 and 2009. Mr President, my last question is what can I, as an MEP, say to the employees who are shown the door by their employers, who are making a profit, when they know that the only reason why they are being laid off is to push up the profits. Can I be satisfied by telling them that the Council cannot do anything because the Commission has not made a proposal? I know that this is not what you believe, as a man and as a member of parliament, and I would like to have a slightly more firm commitment from yourself on this issue.

Political group: PSE
In December 2003, the Commission, exceeding its competences, concluded an agreement with the USA on transmitting air passenger data. Only later did it table its draft decision to the Council and to Parliament. As we have previously stated, we are vehemently opposed to that agreement. Under the pretext of the ‘war on terror’, personal data are to be transmitted to the USA, covering 34 areas – including telephone numbers, credit card details, political opinions, family background, religious convictions and state of health – without any safeguards or effective monitoring. This state of affairs only goes to show how the so-called ‘war on terror’ is used to undermine citizens’ rights, freedoms and safeguards. As we have previously stated, this is an unacceptable and illegal agreement, which violates the European directive on data protection. The responsibility for ensuring the protection of people in terms of the basic data on air passengers currently lies with individual countries, yet this agreement seeks to remove from individual countries any responsibility effectively to block transfers in order to safeguard citizens’ rights. We consequently agree with the overall thrust of this resolution, especially as it calls on the Commission to block the current system of transmitting data to the USA and to withdraw its proposal for a decision.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Without wishing to dramatise, Mr President, this proposal contains a core of minimum standards that reveal the legislative courage to respond effectively to the issue of citizens of third countries in need of international protection, at the same time eliminating national differences in the way in which persons are treated, avoiding the need for secondary movements. This, at least, is our view. I therefore wish to highlight an extremely positive aspect of the Commission proposal, which is the complementarity of the dual status of international protection in which, in addition to the narrow approaches of the 1950s, the concept is extended to subsidiary protection, clarifying the concept of the perpetrators of persecution not limited solely to the State and its agents but also to material circumstances and others in which the outcome is that the State does not give protection, either because it cannot or because it does not want to, and we can all recall such situations in Africa and in Latin America. We also have the concept’s inclusion of the protection organisations of stable quasi-State authorities, which must be held responsible in practical terms for the protection of individuals who fall outside the scope of simple peace or military security missions, which often relegate into second place the effective protection of individuals and respect for human rights. Lastly, extending refugees’ rights in terms of periods of residence, employment and integration mechanisms, which concern every aspect of refugees’ citizenship. The violence arising from poverty and from other social scourges is not included but I hope that this will be covered in future by means of a broader concept of common asylum policy. For the moment, however, a good part of the ground has been covered, as have the bases for a common European asylum policy. The Commission should, in our opinion, be congratulated on its work, but the Council must not continue to defraud us, demonstrating its congenital inability to take a decision, as is traditional and as usually happens in these matters. Nor, Commissioner, will the Council be receiving from this House, from this Parliament, an endorsement for its inefficiency, ineffectiveness and for failing to vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group unconditionally condemns all violence in the Middle East. Victims among the civilian population are always unacceptable, whether they are at the hands of suicide attacks or the army. For years, Europe has tried to play a significant role in the conflict, but we are mainly fighting the symptoms rather than the root causes of the disease. What needs to happen is for people to start believing in the future again. People who have hope in the future have something to lose and are therefore prepared to fight for peace instead of plodding along in the status quo or, even worse, thinking that violence is the answer. In order to guarantee a promising future, we demand serious efforts from both sides. The Palestinian Authority must, in the first instance, adopt a much tougher stance with regard to suicide attacks. Terrorists are not heroes, but killers, and must be approached accordingly. In addition, the Palestinian Authority must reform, and stamp out corruption, so that the Palestinian population can have confidence in their leaders. Secondly, we ask Israel to call an end to the policy of using closures as a means of economic strangulation and humiliation. Payments to the Palestinians must also be resumed so that European money can once again be used for development projects in education and care rather than payment support. In addition, it remains unacceptable that settlements are still allowed to expand. The occupation and the settlements remain the biggest obstacle to real peace and security for everyone. I am ashamed of the lack of European resolve in the area of the Middle East. Every day, innocent people die, and all we do is settle for declarations and meetings. As Palestine's largest donor and Israel's biggest trading partner, we should surely be able to do something more to accomplish our own European goals. I should like to conclude with a comment about the forthcoming elections. Unfortunately, neither of the parties has put a sound peace plan on the table. It is really time that this was done, so that in January, Israelis and Palestinians will be able to vote for peace for themselves and for their neighbours. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Thank you, Mr President. I would like to congratulate you once again on your report, Mr Hatzidakis. You must be aware that we are 99% in agreement with you. In particular, I must thank you for keeping your word and ensuring that ageing will be taken into account somehow in connection with the development of funds. It has yet to be determined exactly how this will be achieved. I see Mr Pomes Ruiz is at your side. This issue is mentioned in the latter’s report also. It appears, therefore, that you are both fully aware of what ageing and low population density can entail. Ladies and gentlemen, there can be no cohesion without development. There can be no development without a productive population. There cannot be a productive population if there is low population density and ageing. Ageing is not a territorial problem. It is a horizontal problem affecting all regions of Europe. It affects all Member States too, and will become ever more significant in the years to come. It is a major contributory factor to lack of development in regions where this is the case. I therefore call on the Group of the Party of European Socialists to withdraw Amendment No 8, as this amendment could make it difficult for ageing to be taken into account as a negative factor as far as development is concerned.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to start by congratulating and thanking rapporteur, Mr Cunha, both for the careful and serious approach which he has taken to the subject of tobacco in his report and for the sensitive and understanding manner in which he dealt with the interventions of the members of the Committee on Agriculture. For the rest, however, as he himself has said, the subject of tobacco as dealt with in this specific proposal for a Council regulation is a purely technical matter concerning the 2002, 2003 and 2004 crops. The Commission was wrong to try and introduce political criteria into the debate; apart from the fact that they have nothing to do with the aspects of the issue at debate here, they are also completely groundless, premature and even, I would say, provocative as regards the more general working of and prospects for the common agricultural policy. We all know that tobacco is a prime example of a very labour-intensive crop grown on family-run farms and poor, barren soil, meaning that, apart from anything else, it allows man to live and work in areas which, if deserted physically and ecologically, would have incalculable social and environmental repercussions. The Commission knows all this and it was the Commission which used to take every opportunity to reiterate it. Lately, however, motivated perhaps by the expediency of supporting its misguided intervention in Gothenburg, it has omitted to repeat its earlier references and is in danger of putting the debate on this issue on the wrong footing. The right footing is exactly as suggested by Mr Cunha in his report with the support of the Committee on Agriculture, which plenary is called on to endorse and which the Commission is called on to respect in any future action.

Political group: PSE
President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, like all the speakers, I would like to begin by congratulating you on the main outcome of the Copenhagen Summit, namely the enlargement of the Union or, to put it more accurately, the reunification of Europe. It is true that a number of practical difficulties lie before us, but we are heading in the right direction on the whole, and by this, I am referring not only to the first ten candidate countries, but also to Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. There is another section of the summit results which deserves our attention, namely that relating to the European security and defence policy. The European Council has made progress on three dossiers. First of all, that on relations between the European Union and NATO. For months, there had been no progress on the issue of the Union’s use of NATO capabilities and resources. Permanent solutions have been found: this is a step forward that was needed. We also welcome the confirmation that the Union is prepared to replace the military operation in Macedonia as soon as possible. Lastly, the European Council also indicated that the Union was willing to carry out a military operation in Bosnia following on from SFOR’s activities. European ambitions are, admittedly, still modest in these three areas, but they at least constitute concrete steps forward. We now must hope that the Council, the Commission and the Convention on the Future of Europe, each working within its own area of competence, help to bring to life a genuine European foreign policy and a genuine ESDP. One final, brief point, on a less optimistic note, regarding the timetable of the Convention and the IGC on the future of Europe. Not only has the summit failed to give any clarification, it has in fact added to the confusion. This timetable is very important, however, for the success of the reform and for the European Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have tabled Amendment No 6 which will become null and void if Amendment No 3 is voted for. Through my amendment, I wanted to ask for a dialogue to be opened immediately between the European Union and Belarus in the context of the fight against crime and the trade in human beings. As a prior condition of such a dialogue, Amendment No 3 would have Belarus fulfil all the conditions set out in the report, meaning that this collaboration in the fight against crime would not begin for several years, whereas it needs to begin right away. I propose that you either vote on my amendment before voting on Amendment No 3 or hold a split vote and vote separately on the part of the sentence reading ‘as soon as the basic conditions are fulfilled’. I ask you to vote against this part of the sentence because I think that cooperation of this kind, focused on the fight against crime, must begin immediately, whatever the conditions prevailing in the country concerned.

Political group: GUE-NGL