GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President-in-Office, as you will understand, both the matter of the European prisoners in Guantanamo and the conditions they face and the matter of the transfer of confidential data to the United States on airline passengers give us cause for distrust and concern about the agreement and about the stand which the European Union will maintain. There are three points but I mainly want to mention the first to you. On the question of the death penalty, the other day the Community paper, Europe, printed Article 13, in which it says that, if the party in which the death penalty applies requests an extradition from another party that does not apply it, then the other party, that is, the European Union, may stipulate that the death penalty must not be applied or imposed and the article ends: If the requesting state accepts extradition subject to the conditions set out in this paragraph, it shall comply with the conditions. If the requesting state does not accept the conditions, the request for extradition may be denied. Mr President-in-Office, I should like clarification as to whether this is true: ‘may be denied’ and not ‘will be denied’ means that the European Union or a Member State of the European Union ultimately has the facility to hand someone over to the United States, despite the fact that the European Union's terms will not be accepted and the death penalty will be imposed or applied. This is an outrage! This is monstrous! This is a huge risk! I should like, Minister, some clarification on your part as to whether this is how things stand. There is the problem of the Criminal Court and there is the problem of control by the European Parliament. Mr President-in-Office, I wish to finish by saying that the Greek Government and you personally, whose fights for democracy are well known, should not burden yourself and history by concluding such an agreement during the Greek Presidency.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, talking of democracy and enlargement, I have just received a message that a journalist and members of Rifondazione have been expelled from Prague, where they had gone to take part in a demonstration against the enlargement of ΝΑΤΟ. I condemn this move. The European Union is neither a charitable institution nor the champion of prosperity and freedom for the people. It is a depressing mechanism for defending the interests of big business, it is the European outpost of the global imperialist system, which is hitting out at workers' rights and building up an army and repressive mechanisms to silence any opposition. The objective of enlargement is to fill the vacuum when the system was overturned in Europe, witness the cries of revenge heard in the Chamber today. The objective is also to strengthen the new bourgeoisie, fretting about its sovereignty as people become more and more aware of what they lost along with socialism. At the same time, NATO is being extended eastwards and taking on a more aggressive role with the full support of the United States. The nature of the European Union and the experience of the people in my country during 22 years of membership is such that we cannot conceal the truth from other people; we are compelled to warn them of the consequences of their incarceration. Despite expectations of prosperity cultivated by propaganda, the consequences of integration will be catastrophic for the economy of these countries, where production is still far lower than it was during the last years of socialism. The European Union already has a balance of trade surplus of EUR 30 billion a year, in other words instead of financing it is being financed. As far as Cyprus is concerned, it is common knowledge that the Annan plan, which has the full backing of the United States and the European Union, is a far cry from the framework of the UN resolutions and the cross-community agreements reached so far, which have been dumped in the bin. It is a disguised form of confederation, which will result in institutional recognition of partition and acceptance of the fait accompli of Turkish invasion and occupation. This fact has wider implications because it is tantamount to acceptance on the part of the UN itself of the use of military violence to achieve political aims and move borders. This development is the direct consequence of the procedure to integrate Cyprus into the European Union, the G8 resolution and the Helsinki resolution and our party warned of their consequences a very long time ago. It may well be the first time in the 84-year history of the Communist Party of Greece that we are unable to express satisfaction at the fact that our predictions have come true.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We are voting against this report that deals with so-called domestic help. The introduction of models of this type, sometimes referred to as the “new labour market”, in countries such as Belgium and Denmark clearly shows a preservation of a lower servant class consisting primarily of immigrant women, but also of men and the long-term unemployed. To tax-subsidise such a labour market is in our opinion downright offensive. Tax resources should be used in another way, for example so that people can improve themselves and be given choices in life. Problems taken up in the report can be solved with a humane asylum and refugee policy, by organising work to take into consideration a balance between work and personal life as well as by taking responsibility for people with special needs in a way which shows solidarity and social responsibility.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the report claims to combat undeclared work, but the sole concern of the rapporteur is the conditions of competition between employers, not the situation of the workers forced to work in the black economy. The things that force workers increasingly to accept just any old job are this economy of yours, unemployment, and poverty. These workers are the first victims, the principal victims, of undeclared work, in personal and social terms, as they are grossly exploited, subjected to terrible working conditions and terrible wage conditions, and deprived of any legal sickness and accident insurance. So it is scandalous to attempt to blame them for their own misfortune, even in part. In the report’s explanatory statement, the author even has the temerity to wonder if some of the reasons for the black economy are not the excessively low retirement age, the excessively short working day or “inflexible employment legislation”, by way of suggesting that if legal working conditions were reduced to the level of those in the black economy, then bosses would have less reason not to declare workers. If Parliament truly wished to combat undeclared work, it would have to begin by proposing that any employer guilty of employing a non-declared worker should be forced to employ that person under an open-ended contract. We did not, of course, vote in favour of this report for, while pretending to protect victims, it in fact absolves the slave drivers, including a number of major firms which are completely unaffected by economic penalties.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am not quite clear as to whether the words ‘church organisations’ should appear in the text. If not, I should like us to return to the original wording. You, Madam President, said one thing and Mrs Sörensen another. Would you be so kind as to repeat what the oral amendment should really consist of?

Political group: PSE
The Mediterranean has always been, and still is, a particularly sensitive region with serious political, economic and social problems. Peaceful coexistence, mutually beneficial and balanced cooperation between countries and peoples, with no interference in their internal affairs, and smooth transnational relations have always been the mainstay of any cooperation between its countries. The Mediterranean countries which do not belong to the ΕU have to cope with particularly acute problems of economic development and regional inequalities are becoming more and more marked. The ΕU and its Member States bear a great deal of the responsibility for this state of affairs. What we are witnessing is over-exploitation of natural and human resources by the developed countries, mainly the EU, and the companies established in them, in order to maintain and increase their foreign debt. The attempt to export the EU economic and social model to the countries of the Mediterranean which do not belong to the EU and to integrate them into the new world order and so-called globalisation is the expression of colonial mentality. It cannot provide a stable basis for cooperation because it seeks to impose the ways of the strong on the weak and to serve the interests of huge monopolies rather than the interests of the people and workers of the countries in the region. The attitude of the Member States of the EU towards immigrants from these and other countries, making many of them feel insecure and at risk of deportation, failing to grant them equal rights with other workers, and maintaining ghettos of second-class citizens and victims of a modern slave trade is a typical example of this conduct. The various embargos against, and even military intervention in, countries which refuse to toe the EU line and bow to the new world order are another typical example of Community policy. As is the fact that some countries are excluded from Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, others receive privileged treatment and money is distributed not on the basis of real need but of the interests of multinational capitalists. Finally, we should not forget that we are talking about a region in which the EU and ΝΑΤΟ bombarded Yugoslavia and in which the ΕU, with ΝΑΤΟ's blessing, has conferred candidate status on Turkey, which is currently occupying 40% of Cyprus and contesting Greece's sovereign rights. Nor should we forget our responsibilities towards the Palestinian people living in wretched conditions under a regime of Israeli state terrorism who continue to fight heroically for a homeland. Unfortunately, the proposal for a resolution has failed to address these issues and has abided by the philosophy applied by the EU hitherto. Its aim is to help European monopolies penetrate the area, obviously so that they can continue to plunder the wealth of the Mediterranean countries outside the ΕU. That is why the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece have voted against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen – at least those of you who are still here – the group supports the entire content of Mr Hatzidakis' report. We take the view that we may well support the Commission's proposal in principle, but that we do want to bring about some changes on a few points. The traffic safety issue is, of course, decisive, and we need this regulation because traffic safety is not bound by national borders and heavy goods vehicles do, indeed, cross them. In principle, we also need speed limitation devices for smaller vehicles, as we have had good experience of speed limitation devices in heavy lorries. It is because these HGVs travel across borders everywhere that we need European regulations. However, Madam Vice-President, we have to introduce the regulations in a slightly refined form and with longer time limits, for we are dealing here with major economic burdens laid on small and medium-sized enterprises. We should therefore be more generous in the transitional provisions, in order that the burden on the economy may not be allowed to be too great. Let me conclude by appealing to the Social Democrats and Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, who is herself a great expert on traffic safety. As our Amendment No 12 demands, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, we need different speeds for small and large lorries. So we are again asking you to support our Amendment No 12, so that we can permit a speed of 110 kph for smaller commercial vehicles. If we impose the same speed limit on all HGVs, we are pre-programming traffic jams into the motorway system. If we are to ensure traffic flow, we must make it possible for smaller vehicles to overtake. With that in mind, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, I ask you to support our amendment. We will then have a great piece of legislation!

Political group: PPE-DE
I agree in general (while having some reservations about some of the language) with the resolution as posed. I believe the European Union should co-operate on an international level in combating terrorism, organised crime and individual criminals, all of whom use the differences in legal systems to avoid standing trial. However, my main reservation with regard to this resolution is the absence of any reference to the International Criminal Court, initiated by the Rome Convention. This court when established will enable the trial of any and every individual suspected of crime, including war crimes. This court, which is being opposed by the USA Government would guarantee a fair trial and would apply even-handedly to everyone. In current circumstances this court is needed more than ever. - Lagendijk report (A5-0394/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the national States flourished in the nineteenth century, and that was partly thanks to the railways. Well then, in the twenty-first century, Europe must finally be put back on the railways. That is why this package is so important. In the period between the debate at first reading and this debate, however, the facts have demonstrated that it is still too soon to support Mr Jarzembowski’s high-speed rail system. The Sterckx, Ainardi and Savary reports are more in tune with the needs of today. My fellow MEP Mr Jarzembowski is impatient and is already arguing in favour of the accelerated liberalisation of passenger transport. We are already seeing in a few countries the damage this can do to regional cross-border passenger rail transport. Conventional international trains are being cancelled, for example. Service is declining in those cases, therefore. Surely it cannot be the case that, in a United Europe, non-TGV cross-border rail traffic, of all things, becomes much more expensive or even disappears. I have already drawn the Commission’s attention to this, in a parliamentary question, and, in its reply, it shares my opinion, calling this ‘an anomaly in the internal market’. Try explaining that to the electorate. Another pressing concern is the disappearance of, or change in, the range of international trains that is therefore not being identified. I hope that the European Agency carries out a clear evaluation of this, and that we include this aspect in the debate on trans-European networks. We shall vote against premature liberalisation without a framework of accompanying measures. Mr Simpson has pointed out the potential consequences of this. We propose awaiting the proposals that the Commission is going to make at the end of this year with regard to liberalisation. That is the point at which we should hold this debate, Mr Jarzembowski, and I hope that we are still able to get through the first reading here, so that this work is not wasted. Let us first concentrate on freight transport, however, as that surging flow needs to be put on the railways urgently.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, now that the are finally in clover, does it not make sense to choose the much easier path through the whole complicated premium structure by going for a climate-related grassland premium and forgetting the rest? Secondly, Commissioner, I should like to point out that one point needs greater clarification because otherwise, I think, the internal market will fall apart. If, as it would appear, the costs of disposing of bonemeal and material from slaughtered animals are not clarified uniformly in the Member States, and are partly taken up by government levies and partly passed on to farmers through prices, how do you intend to resolve this problem? Otherwise we shall not be able to keep the internal market together.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is important that we treat our Turkish friends with honesty and openness. Of course, treating them honestly and openly also includes the right to be critical and to point out deficiencies. We want to help Turkey on its path to true democracy and the rule of law. Turkey deserves fair treatment, and Mr Oostlander’s report is fair. It describes the remarkable progress that is being made, but also states in all honesty where reform is still badly needed. In my opinion, what is important is that Turkey itself must want to make progress in terms of meeting the Copenhagen criteria. It must not work on these reforms primarily to appease the critics in the EU, to do us a favour, so to speak. Turkey must embed the necessary reforms deep within its own society, and the reforms must have an impact in real life. Constitutional amendments on paper, or new laws on paper, will not be enough on their own. Paper is patient! What is crucial is to implement reforms in people’s daily lives. So far, however, it is precisely this that we have yet to see. Mr Oostlander’s report describes the many shortcomings that exist in all areas. It notes that the conditions for opening accession negotiations have not yet been met at the present time, and calls upon the Council to take a clear and consistent position at last. The Copenhagen criteria – and this must be stressed over and over again – are not negotiable. This applies equally to all candidate countries, and so it also applies to Turkey. Turkey must also be fair here for once towards the EU and acknowledge this fact. Turkey must stop passing the buck to the EU and trying to exert pressure. It was not us who promised the Turkish people rapid accession within a few years; Turkish politics itself bears sole responsibility for this. If Turkish politics now finds itself having to provide explanations and the population is becoming impatient, it is a problem of Turkey’s own making that must be resolved in Turkey and not by the EU by softening the accession criteria. What Turkey can expect from us – and it really can – is honesty, openness, seriousness and fairness. IN THE CHAIR: MRS CERSCHIÖLDVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Like previous speakers, I should like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Lisi, for the quality of his work on a highly technical and particularly sensitive subject for our citizens. Originally, Seveso III was supposed to be no more than what I would call an improved version of Seveso II. Following the tragedies of Baia Mare and Enschede, the revision of this directive was chiefly intended to broaden its scope to cover mining activities, and to reduce the thresholds for pyrotechnical substances. On 21 September last year, the position changed following the catastrophe at the AZF factory in Toulouse, a very cruel reminder of the reality of the situation. In order to be effective, a law must, above all, be correctly applied. That was obviously not the case in Toulouse. No hazard study had been carried out in the building in which the explosion occurred. Nor had any reassessment been made – since 1995 – of the ammonium nitrates produced and stored, which is why, without calling into question the excellent provisions regarding risk assessment already laid down in Seveso II, I am in favour of making the obligations to be met by the operator more stringent. Article 9 is the backbone of this directive. We therefore need to take action, as it were, ‘upstream’, so that the safety report is drawn up with the greatest transparency and is updated as soon as any significant change occurs on the industrial site. On this subject, the welcomes the adoption, at the committee stage, of Amendments Nos 17 to 19. Turning to the safety report, and, more broadly, to another crucial aspect of this revision, the control of urban sprawl around industrial sites, I see that Member States have methods of calculating hazard limits which are very different, and in some cases contradictory, and that is why we welcome the vote in committee to adopt Amendment No 20, which seeks to implement, eventually, a single European method of calculation. As a Commission representative said to members of the French Parliament after the Toulouse disaster, a process which seeks to harmonise approaches without harmonising basic philosophies will never succeed. That is why, and also for the sake of consistency, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is also in favour of Amendment No 55 on this subject. Also for safety reasons, we believe it is essential, as stipulated in Amendment No 39, to lower the thresholds for the fourth category of ammonium nitrates, those consisting of rejects, similar to the substances that exploded in the warehouse at the AZF factory. Finally, Madam President, the competent national authorities must ensure compliance with the on-site obligations, which are to be reinforced here, by means of Seveso III. We must never relax our campaign against the trivialisation of risks in certain industries. That must be our priority, in memory of the 52 victims of Toulouse and Enschede, as well as all the other victims.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we would firstly like to congratulate our colleague Mr Brok on his initiative in promoting this debate before the meeting in Marseilles begins. As Commissioner Patten indicated, it is clear that the lack of consolidated peace in the Middle East is distorting the whole process that was outlined at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference and, in particular, the appropriate and correct application of the MEDA funds. The Group of the Europe Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party obviously supports the Commission’s actions in favour of a Mediterranean policy, as outlined five years ago in Barcelona, and we want it to be consolidated. A few days ago, in Barcelona, at various meetings of the Círculo de Economía, the Secretary General of the Council, Mr Solana, told us that the priorities for European external activity are firstly with our neighbours, and our closest neighbours are the Mediterraneans. And we are not forgetting that the source of potential conflicts that we have in the medium term, due to demographic change, inequality of income, changing expectations and cultural differences, is also there. Our priority must therefore be to ensure the peace and security of the European Union in the Mediterranean and we have to make every possible effort to achieve this cooperation and to ensure that the funds allocated are used efficiently, according to what we might call the selfish generosity of the European Union. We have to be generous towards the Mediterranean, but from a selfish point of view, which is to safeguard the stability that we need so much for the people of the European Union, and for European society.

Political group: ELDR