GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I congratulate Mrs Maij-Weggen on an excellent report. I know she has great experience of Indonesia and, in particular, the Indonesian Moluccan community living in Holland. The position we have to take regarding the territorial integrity of Indonesia is simple: we have to abide by international law and by the United Nations Resolution 2504 of December 1969. That resolution categorically affirms that Irian Jaya is part of Indonesia. It is something that all our countries have agreed to, have signed up to, and have a responsibility to support. It was a recognition by the global community of the legality of the vote in Irian Jaya to become a permanent part of Indonesia and reaffirm United Nations Declaration 1514 of 1960 which prohibits any act aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country. The situation in Irian Jaya is totally different, legally and constitutionally, from the situation that pertained to East Timor. Parliament should not confuse the two. Irian Jaya is an integral part of Indonesia historically. East Timor never was. The rule of law must therefore prevail. Yes, of course we must ensure that Indonesia maintains its progress in the prosecution of those members of the security forces accused of human rights violations. In this case we must wield the carrot and the stick. Any outside intervention other than support for democratisation and the rule of law can only be seen as counterproductive and inflammatory to all parties. There will be no winners if we take an imperial stance on this issue. I use that word advisedly. What we can do in the European Parliament and the EU is to ask the new democratic Indonesian Government not to over-react. Over-reaction will play into the hands of the separatists, turning terrorists into martyrs and heroes. The other activity we can undertake immediately is to give massive support to good governance projects in Indonesia: support in terms of manpower, money, NGO activity, setting standards and criteria so that the devolved administrative arrangement now agreed by President Wahid can be underpinned by creating lasting democratic and civil society institutions. If we want to help Indonesia we must act now with money and deeds, not merely words.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, even though the adoption last year, in Nice, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights represented a step forward for human rights in the European Union, it constitutes only a minimum standard for the protection to which every citizen is entitled. Unfortunately it is still inadequate to combat the distress suffered by thousands of individuals, whether they are refugees, immigrants or illegal immigrants, in particular where women and children are concerned. At no time are the countries concerned, whether European or not, called to order or condemned for the violations that they have committed. Proof of this lies in the reports that have been tabled here today. However good they may be, and for that we can thank the rapporteurs, they still do nothing more than list the many cases in which fundamental rights are giving cause for concern. Human rights and fundamental liberties are universal and inseparable. They must not recognise any boundaries, whether of nationality or of gender. We must reaffirm this argument, strongly and vigorously These rights will only become a reality if everyone is aware of their existence, but also only if everyone has confidence in those who are responsible for applying and respecting them. It is therefore essential to enforce those rights, but also to make them visible and accessible to everyone. If we are to be constructive, we must set up a dialogue with all those involved in the recognition, promotion and defence of fundamental rights, particularly those who are closest to the least-favoured individuals, those who are the victims of discrimination. Another key factor lies in ratifying international instruments and translating them into everyday life: the right to move around freely, to live with one’s family, to be a citizen. Whatever a society is like, it can only flourish in peace, and there can be no peace without justice. Apart from these generalised speeches in favour of human rights, nothing will happen without the political will to achieve real equality of rights for all men and women who have a share in wealth and in the construction of Europe and European citizenship. Instead of fussing about the structures that the European Parliament might give itself in the future, we ought to equip ourselves with the means to ensure that human rights and fundamental liberties are respected, including social and political rights, without which the principles of a state under the rule of law and of democracy will no longer have any meaning.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, speaking this morning on behalf of my group in the debate on consumers and consumer protection, I, like many of my fellow Members, would like to say once again that, although we can adhere to the European Commission’s objectives in this area – high level of protection, effective application of rules and effective participation of consumer organisations – we must once again point out that the proposals made are still far too vague and not specific enough. That is why I fully agree with the proposals made by Mr Whitehead and Mrs Patrie, in particular with regard to safety, transport, chemical substances, e-commerce and the provision of prior information in all cases in order to allow, where necessary, appropriate and effective defence and recourse mechanisms to be activated. I would also like to mention specifically the readability of the ecolabel and, in particular, the need for highly comprehensive information on GMOs which, as you are all aware, are a contentious issue for us. Lastly, I would like to stress the need for the Toys Directive and control of the CE mark. As I was rapporteur on these issues a few years ago, I know that the Toys Directive needs to be revised urgently and that, due to insufficient controls, the CE mark has in many cases become devoid of all meaning. I have also written to the Commission several times on this matter, but I regret to say that I have not received a satisfactory response. Incidentally, at this stage of the debate on consumer protection and policy, I would also like to express very clearly two concerns in the form of basic criticisms. My first concern is that, whatever their advantages, consumer protection policies are too closely linked to, and therefore overly dependent on, the objective of accelerated creation of a single market. These policies are only rarely objectives in themselves and tend, for the most part, to be a result of free competition. My second concern is that these policies are frequently, if not always, a pretext for erasing, suffocating, or even abolishing the concept of public service, even though this is far broader than consumer protection as it applies in the long term, which involves solidarity and land use planning, in particular through pricing and access conditions. In some countries and some political groups, the best upholders of consumer protection are often those who do most harm to public services, acting in the name of free competition and the dominance of the private sector. This morning, I therefore wanted to point out these fundamental differences or even divergences, while welcoming the efforts made by the European Commission and supporting our rapporteurs’ proposals. IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for producing these successful reports and for their excellent work. The reports focus attention on the essential factors in increasing maritime safety. There is still, however, much to be done to improve maritime safety. Besides imposing stricter rules, we have to ensure that the solutions implemented are realistic and, furthermore, viable. The Council has incorporated in its general position a large number of the amendments adopted at Parliament’s first reading. Regarding classification societies, the problem is amending the article that deals with liability in such a way that maximum as well as minimum limits are defined in it. Many Member States do not, however, intend to accept that a maximum limit should be set. With regard to the directive on Port State control, the problem is the black boxes, which we must hurry to fit in vessels. There must be a black box on all ships, but financial reality makes it necessary to seek solutions wherein present cargo vessels could be equipped with technically simplified black boxes. In my opinion, the approval and scrutiny of classification societies must be tightened up. Expanded inspections must be made of high-risk vessels in particular. The criteria for allowing high-risk, blacklisted vessels access to a port must be made more stringent. Our group thinks it important that a solution be found for the problems, that both proposals be adopted speedily, and that we make progress in matters of safety. I still nevertheless wish to draw attention to the fact that decisions made solely within the Union to increase maritime safety are not enough. For example, questions of liability must be dealt with on a global basis.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, one of the main problems arising in this whole issue is that there is not any legal sanction from Europe to ensure that Member States adhere to the excellent concept of additionality. I think we must look in detail at that problem, and we need also better coordination between DGs on this issue. Additionality is your concept, and it is up to you to ensure that it works effectively in Member States. We understand as well, of course, the problems you are facing concerning the overlapping of programmes, creating problems of continuity for you. Verification is another matter that needs to be tackled with Member States, because they are guilty as well. We understand your problems, that they are not providing for you sufficient data in good time, especially with Objectives 2, 3 and 4, to enable you to ensure that the system works more effectively. One of the worst offenders in this connection is the UK. No additional money has been built into the budget of our Welsh Assembly. This is clear non-compliance. The European Parliament and the European Union admit that our nation of Wales is poor and yet the UK government, not only the Labour government, has not complied with additionality. It is all very well for my colleague Jonathan Evans to imply that his party is not guilty. For eighteen long years the concept of additionality was not complied with by his government either. I think some momentum is being lost, Mr President. I was talking to councils in Wales yesterday. They need this scheme to go ahead. It is in line with the excellent principle of cohesion, and we ask the Commission to adhere to that and to assist the poorest regions in the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am grateful to Commissioner Lamy for his answer, as far as it went. I certainly agree with what he said in the last part of his answer about the need for capacity-building in the least developed countries as well as, perhaps the need for asymmetrical measures, resulting in a certain level of protection for their markets that we do not seek to enjoy in return. But my main concern in asking the question – and I do not feel this has been fully dealt with – is over this matter of exactly what 'essential products' means. Commissioner Lamy talks about certain agricultural products, but it has been precisely the protectionism of the common agricultural policy that has most offended developing countries and which has held back development for many of those countries in terms of agricultural production. What more specific comments can he make about which sectors and which products will be concerned, and for how long? That is the sort of message we want to hear. I wonder whether it would not be a better step forward, in terms both of winning the confidence of the developing countries and of acting as an example to other trading partners, for us, as Europe, to say: 'now is the time; we are going to offer this now. We do not want to wait for five years; let others follow our example'.

Political group: PSE
I wish to begin by welcoming Mr Graça Moura's report. While I am not a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I am one of the vice-chairmen of the Delegation for relations with the Peoples' Republic of China and so take a considerable interest in what is happening there. From my perspective, the most significant development in China of recent years is the move towards China becoming incorporated into the world trading system. Not merely is this significant, as it takes China into the world community of nations, it also brings China into the evolving new system of decision-making in an increasingly interdependent world. I would like to make two particular points which arise from this. First, for Chinese membership of the World Trade Organisation to be a success, it is necessary for legal certainty and even-handedness to apply to commercial relations between Chinese business and firms from outside. If and when these relationships go wrong, and it is bound to happen from time to time, there is an overriding requirement for there to be in place proper legal processes to deal even-handedly and fairly with outstanding causes of disagreement. I know that steps are being taken to enable this to occur and I very much support and welcome them because without them WTO membership cannot be a success. Secondly, it is a characteristic of current developments in international relations that the traditional demarcation between domestic and foreign policy is breaking down. Regardless of whether human rights issues in the past may have been treated as purely domestic considerations, increasingly now they are not. Regardless of the situation in classical international law, these things are important to people outside China. They will and do take them into account in making policy, be it political or commercial. The same equally applies within the European Union. How these aspects of life are handled domestically in China now has, and will continue in the future to have, repercussions on the way in which relations between China and both foreign countries and foreign businesses develop.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur on the content of his report and the way in which he has worked and established a dialogue with other groups in the House, which I believe has been positive, and I would also like to congratulate the Commission on its initial proposal. We must remember that we are saying to refugees that only one country of the European Union is going to consider their application for asylum. This is equivalent to saying that fourteen of the fifteen European countries are not going to appear on the relatively short list of democratic and prosperous countries in which a persecuted citizen can legitimately request asylum. I believe that this gives the countries of the EU and the Union itself the serious responsibility to offer, in exchange, firm guarantees of security to these people in various respects, which must take the form of respect for them and their families, the rapid adoption of a decision which is favourable to asylum seekers, the prohibition of all forms of discrimination and guaranteed access to justice for those people, with a view to referring that decision to the State responsible in order that their case may be re-examined. I also believe that this proposal is a necessary step, which requires others in order to make full sense. I believe that we can state that this House must support this proposal so that progress can be made in the direction indicated previously. We can see that the European Council has problems making progress with this harmonised and European asylum policy and that it finds it difficult to take these steps and I believe it is very important that tomorrow this House gives strong support to the proposal in the way I have indicated so that, amongst all of us, we can urge the Council to assume the responsibility it accepted in Tampere. Therefore, as the rapporteur has said, my group and I are going to ask for this report to be approved with the amendments which have already been approved in committee and with a few of those that will be tabled in plenary.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted against this resolution because, I am afraid to say, it shows how the funds available to the European Union are spent unwisely. In my opinion, this should be considered to be a waste of resources: in one sense we are throwing money down the drain, for EUR 12.4 million is to be spent over a period of four years – from 2001 to 2004 – to facilitate the application of Community environment legislation at local level. Now then, as the report itself says, at best we would be able to finance a dozen or so projects. This is equivalent to waiting for rain in the desert and then one drop falling every square kilometre. It would go no way at all towards quenching the thirst of the parched. In my opinion, the Union's financial expenditure should be carried out uniformly wherever possible. Here, in practice, it is as if money were being given to the first takers out of a crowd of parched, starving people begging for a crust of bread. I do not feel that this is the right way to be spending the European Union's funds. - Dary report (A5-0374/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not have the time to delve into the possible differences between the text of the reports and the personal views of each of the rapporteurs. I will therefore focus my comments on the Commission’s statement and on the contribution of the Commissioner, and will offer both my strong support. In my view, the Commission is fulfilling its role as guardian of the treaties on this matter perfectly. I believe the Stability and Growth Pact is not dead. I believe that above and beyond the arguably controversial statements made at the end of last year on formulas that could be perceived as risky, it is important to insist upon the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the Stability and Growth Pact and to ensure that its spirit is kept alive. The Maastricht criteria mean we are committed to a monetary union that is also a political union based on a number of values. The stability on which the euro is based goes beyond the technical definition of the concept. It amounts to a mutual agreement on a form of social contract. As well as being a strong currency, the euro must above all be a stable currency. In proclaiming this principle, Europe is setting aside its bad habits of the twentieth century, characterised by inflation, which represented a tax for poor people. Europe has decided to commit itself to being a confident society with a stake in the future. These are the values we are presenting to the countries about to join the European Union. Herein lies another reason not to alter these values by taking imprudent action which would undermine them. When players are not doing well at a game, they do not ask for the rules to be changed, but learn them instead.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, you will be aware that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development is currently meeting in our Brussels building. You may not be aware that there are two representatives of the Burmese military junta taking part in that conference. As you know, the European Union has a common position, supported by this House, not to grant visas to members of the Burmese military junta. Yet here they are in our own building. I understand that the Council has waived the ban for this conference, as it felt that this was necessary in view of its obligations to the United Nations. If so, may I call on you, Madam President, to ask the Council or Mr Solana to issue a statement making it absolutely clear that this was an exception and that the visa ban and the common position are still in place.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me congratulate Mr Baltas very warmly on his report, in particular for the fact that he drafted it so quickly, for it was both important and correct to react quickly to the changes in Croatia as Mr Stenzel said. I also had very good talks with members of the former government. Some were very useful, but the whole thing always had to be seen in the context of extreme nationalism, of very sluggish cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal and a very hesitant approach to Bosnia and Herzegovina. That has changed. The new Croatian government has not only recognised but actually supports Europe's Balkan policy. And that is why it was right to react quickly. I can see no contradiction between the one-to-one relations between the European Union and Croatia and the various Balkan countries, and regional cooperation. We need regional cooperation. We need it, for example, with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is most welcome that the government has said it will support the idea of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single state, which has not always brought it friends among the Croatians in Herzegovina. But that is a bold, clear and definite step and it must be followed up. In the end we also need cooperation with Yugoslavia, meaning cooperation on both sides. On the one hand we must continue to insist that the ethnic Serbian refugees who have fled Croatia can return there, that this is not just the will of the government but can also be achieved against quite considerable local resistance in individual regions, villages and areas. But of course we also need cooperation with Yugoslavia not just for this process but also in order to stabilise the region. Even if we are being a little cautious and reticent at this point we and Mrs Pack is here too have told Mr Kostunica quite plainly that we must also require the new Yugoslavia, which we hope will emerge stronger from the elections on 23 December, to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal, to cooperate on a regional basis, to be prepared to resolve the conflicts peacefully. My third and final comment is this. The Zagreb summit sent out a clear message. We in this Parliament have already incorporated the further developments clause in the agreement with Macedonia. Now, however, we must also prepare the way carefully. That makes the decision, or non-decision, of Nice rather disappointing: the complexity of the majority-voting system makes things difficult enough for the current round of enlargement, but they will become much more difficult when it comes to enlargement towards south-eastern Europe. Here the Union still has much work to do.

Political group: PSE