GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Undoubtedly, racism is a dangerous and unacceptable phenomenon. However, in Britain we have developed our laws to tackle these matters in ways which best suit our own circumstances and to reflect improving race relations (at least until 1997). The offence of xenophobia is extremely difficult to prove and there is no direct place for it in British criminal law. In those circumstances we prefer to continue with our own policies and sanctions. This framework decision if implemented also challenges traditional values of free speech and this is harmful, not helpful, to good race relations, which we all desire. British Conservatives do not like to abstain in the fight against racism but must do so on this occasion for the above reasons.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am now in a position to provide Parliament with more details. The local councillor of the governing Partido Popular party, José Luis Ruiz Casado, was firstly shot in the back of the head and, on falling to the ground, was finished off by his killers. As I said before, Mr Nogueira, a person may choose which side of the fence to sit on, but he later cannot seek futile excuses to justify his decision. Mr Gorostiaga, in the name of this freedom of expression that you cite, can you look me in the eyes and assure me that neither myself nor my family are under threat from ETA for using this freedom of expression here in Parliament? Can you honestly assure me of that, Mr Gorostiaga? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk, which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as far as we are concerned, the outcome of the Nice Summit has not prepared the EU sufficiently for enlargement. In the twelve candidate countries, people prefer to talk in terms of the unification of Europe. That is quite revealing. We, i.e. many European citizens, grew up after the Second World War hoping that a united Europe would be able to play a part in the world some day for the sake of the freedom and welfare of humanity, of its own citizens and peoples. Yet this seems to be an even more distant dream than we had hoped now that Nice is over. After all, Nice was primarily an attempt on the part of the Member States to reach a settlement behind closed doors on the Amsterdam leftovers, with the safeguarding of national interests uppermost in their minds. But what they did not do was endeavour to equip the EU to pursue enlargement. Quite a number of speakers have made the same point this morning and I wholeheartedly agree with them. As representative of the parties united in the , I would like to alert the Commission, but particularly the Council, to the dangers, should the EU wish to be no more than an intergovernmental association. The States preparing for accession will copy the example of our own Member States’ egoism. The regions and peoples that do not have their own state will also weigh the situation up. They will work out what they stand to gain in Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders if, instead of playing the federal game, they opt to become a Member State themselves, with a guaranteed Commissioner, guaranteed clout in the Council, and a larger number of seats in the European Parliament than they can hope for at present. Must we give up the dream of a united Europe? I think not. We are obliged to put our hopes in the post Nice process. We want this to be a real process in which the balance between the institutions of the Union and those of the Member States and the constitutive regions must be defined with respect for the subsidiarity principle.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have read the detailed report on foot and mouth disease in Great Britain and elsewhere, but we believe that this disease broke out and spread as the natural consequence of a number of factors. The first factor is that animals and products of animal origin can be transported with complete freedom – or should I say unaccountability – throughout the world nowadays, thanks to the globalisation demanded by big business looking for ways to make a fast buck. The second factor is that cross-border veterinary checks on movements of livestock between Member States of the European Union have all but been abolished. This basically means that animals can move unchecked from one country to another, as can any dangerous diseases they may be carrying. This is compounded by a third factor, the abolition of government veterinary services, staff cutbacks and the generally scant importance attached to government control mechanisms, all as a result of the demand by big business for any controls to be minimised between or within countries which might obstruct the need for livestock to be moved quickly, together with the profit generated. Finally, and this is not unrelated to what I have just said, there is the feed factor – with no controls whatsoever on feedingstuffs – which appears to have helped foot and mouth disease to spread. This is not a minor factor, as we know from previous crises in the livestock sector in the European Union, such as dioxins in poultry and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. We are under no illusion that crises such as these, which threaten livestock and public health, will keep on happening as long as production is governed by the profit motive and the rules of production, movement, and trade imposed by multinational and other capitalist enterprises in the sector. Any structural or other measures taken will be no more than fragmented measures which work until the next crisis strikes. The only long-term solution which will not jeopardise the agricultural economy of the Member States or wipe out entire livestock holdings is to abolish capitalist profit from production and introduce adequate border and other controls, contrary to the demands of the multinationals which have managed to get them lifted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, thank you for giving me the opportunity of responding to the honourable Member so quickly. I would like to congratulate him on the success of the English national team and at the same time point out to Mr Ferber, who is unfortunately not here, that the overwhelming majority of the German team comes from Bavaria! (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the outermost regions have a special status, recognised in Article 299(2) of the 1997 Treaty on European Union, but I would say that this status has existed since the founding of the first European Economic Community, in 1957, because this Treaty laid down special provisions for the French Overseas Departments. When Spain and Portugal joined the Union in 1986, the Act of Accession of these two countries included special provisions and what Article 299(2) does is to acknowledge a situation that already had a legislative identity, by means of all the special provisions of the various programmes and specific options dealing with the outermost regions, known for short as COP 6. The Community Treaties and legislation, therefore, recognise the reality of the enormous distance of these regions from the continent, making it impossible for them to be competitive, which is what we are always calling for in the European Union. One only has to visit these territories, which on the face of it seem to be paradises, but which have a host of economic and social problems, to realise what this means. And Commissioner Fischler is one of the few people to have made the effort to go there. And I repeat; it is an effort to visit, because although these territories are beautiful, the lack of time and space and our knowledge of their situation make it clear that they are far from being a paradise. This report by the Committee on Fisheries is an acceptable proposal; the rapporteur has done a good job and has tabled some very reasonable amendments and, in my view, Parliament can approve the report. Of course, the Socialist Group gives its support to the report by Mr Lage and we hope that the Commission continues to develop these special approaches to the fisheries sector.

Political group: PSE
I can fully endorse the criticism made by the previous speakers. I would just draw attention to the fact that, under Articles 38 and 24 of the Treaty, Parliament has no right whatsoever to be heard. It is an extraordinary provision, which means that the Council can enter into these agreements off its own bat. In April of last year, the Council wrote to the British human rights organisation, State Watch, which had requested information about these agreements, and said that the negotiations that were under way had to be kept secret, since the Council’s interest in secrecy counted for more than its interest in democratic scrutiny. It is easy to see why the Council has kept these negotiations secret for more than a year, for, if they lead to an agreement, very important parts of the legal certainty by which most of our legal systems are characterised would be successfully abolished at the stroke of a pen. Broadly speaking, the state of our law would be reduced to something reminiscent of what it was in the Middle Ages, both by the extradition agreement, which goes very much farther than what was urged, covering, as it does, very many more types of crime than terrorism – it is enough to have been sentenced to one year’s imprisonment under the penal legislation of the country by or from which extradition is requested – and by the second part of the agreement, namely that relating to what is termed mutual legal aid. Ask the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. These agreements are being entered into with the United States in the name of legal certainty at the same time as everything is being done to infringe legal certainty. Ask the 3 000 prisoners – overwhelmingly foreigners – suspected of terrorism and consigned to American jails without having access to any information. Ask the eleven million active FBI informers who, if this agreement is ever implemented, will be given permission to operate within the territories of the EU countries. That would, as has been said, be a decisive retrograde step. As I said before, this Parliament has no influence at all, either legally or constitutionally, but the debate may be of use in raising the storm that will be necessary for checking these attempts to undermine legal certainty.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, your speech took the words right out of my mouth, since I was actually going to say that Commissioner Lamy has always answered my questions fully. I am very grateful to you for that, as I am always grateful to you for your answers to my questions during Parliamentary Question Time. In any event, I would like to say, before asking one last question, that the members of the Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and Mercosur have just returned from Brasilia. We held meetings with members of the Brazilian Government, with parliamentary leaders, with the President of Congress, and with President Lula’s principal advisors, and we realised once again that we are dealing here with an extraordinary country, which is setting in motion an exemplary social inclusion programme, which will be crucial to its future. As the Commissioner knows, this country also enjoys privileged economic relations with Europe, in addition to the traditional relations of cultural kinship. In addition, I myself have just spent a month and a half in Argentina, on political business, and have seen the progress that the country has made. Mercosur sees its connections with the European Union as a historical relationship between sister states, as a partnership which is essential in order to avoid subordination to the United States. That is why I ask whether the Commission is prepared to give special priority in future to its relations with Mercosur, and perhaps with the whole of South America, which may possibly join Mercosur.

Political group: Verts-ALE
In response to the Prestige disaster, the Commission announced a raft of measures designed to minimise the risk of future accidents involving ships such as the Erika and the Prestige. The Commission is proposing three fundamental changes: the introduction of a law stipulating that crude oil and its heavy fractions be transported only in double hull oil tankers; the rapid withdrawal from service of single hull oil tankers; and more widespread application of the special oil tanker inspection scheme (the programme for assessing the seaworthiness of ships). The latter aims to assess the structural soundness of single hull tankers more than 15 years old. For that reason, I give my unequivocal support to this proposal for a Regulation, which I believe is extremely positive. It promises to guarantee greater safety for maritime traffic, tighter control over the transport of hydrocarbons and more effective protection of the marine environment. These are measures which I have supported for some time. This matter is of the utmost interest not just for a Member State such as Portugal (which has an immensely long coastline and includes extremely vulnerable island territories, including the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores), but for the whole of the European Union as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, of course this resolution speaks for itself. It is an appalling litany of crimes against humanity. President Mugabe is bereft of principles, devoid of any sense of justice, his regime sinks to unimagined levels as each day passes. He has no respect for human rights, minority rights, international law or international opinion. He is a vile despot and we must cease all links with him and his regime. As Mr Van Orden said, we must hit Mr Mugabe and his regime where it matters most, i.e. in the pocket. There must be an end to international trade and effective freezing of the bank accounts of Mr Mugabe and his entourage. Further financial and targeted sanctions must be vigorously imposed. At the same time, we must aid and support those African states which take similar punitive actions against the Mugabe regime. The great sadness in all of this is the effect it is having on the citizens of Zimbabwe, whose only crime is to have Mr Mugabe as their president. Let us target Mr Mugabe, not the citizens of Zimbabwe, and let us ensure that our actions are effective and not merely international window-dressing.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President. EUR 13 million were spent on the DAPHNE Programme from 1997 to 1999, EUR 20 million for the DAPHNE Programme 2000-2003, whilst, for DAPHNE II and the years from 2004 to 2008, the Group of the European People’s Party believes that EUR 50 million will have to suffice. It is not, however, the money that concerns me. I welcome our discovery of street children as a new target group. It has been not only in Nepal and India that I have seen their misery. I know what is the fate of many of them in the EU’s candidate countries, and also, for example, in major German cities. Some are from families in which there is physical violence and sexual abuse. Some believe that they survive only by joining together in gangs. They use drug dealing, theft, and small-scale crime as means of keeping their heads above water. Physical and emotional violence, day in and day out, hardens many to all normal feeling. DAPHNE is meant to raise awareness of violence against girls and boys, young people and women, awareness of how it comes about, awareness of its effects, awareness of how it may be overcome. That this is for the Member States to deal with is not a matter of doubt, but there is a dearth of public resources. It is all the more important that help should be given at European level. Knowledge about the projects is what is needed. Which were successful? How have the victims worked through the violence they have experienced, and what has been learned from the many mistakes? These are topics for seminars, conferences and studies, but always in collaboration with the national NGOs and self-help groups. There is real hope of change through social facilities in which healthy groups can develop, in which friendship can be experienced, solidarity can develop, where children can be motivated to achieve good results at school and be equipped for their integration into the world of work. This is also about adequate accommodation for the victims of violence and about the law standing by the individual. DAPHNE II must succeed in mobilising public awareness. We also need support through the media questioning the need for violence rather than merely depicting it or even glorifying it. If, moreover, this can be achieved by way of committed campaigning across national borders, then such collaborative effort will bring with it real added value for Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to congratulate Mrs Valenciano Martínez-Orozco on her excellent and comprehensive report. It is a fact that, for millions of women throughout the world, genital mutilation is an unavoidable, terrifying ordeal which they have to go through if they are to survive. The absence of any alternative and a complete lack of information are one of the most serious problems for women who suffer this degrading mutilation, which is one of the worse forms of suppression, terrorism and exploitation of women, a criminal practice which violates their personal freedom, their physical integrity, their freedom of conscience and their right to health by causing serious physical injury and mental side effects, not to mention the impact on their sexual identity and ability to bear children. One hundred and thirty million mutilated women in the world is a terrifying number. Unfortunately, this horrible practice has also been introduced into the European Union. According to a statement by the British Medical Association, three thousand women are mutilated in the United Kingdom every year and naturally the fundamentalists, even within the European Union, have no hesitation in applying mediaeval practices in order to subjugate women and control their sexuality. Every human being is entitled to protection under the law when fundamental freedoms and rights are at risk, as is the case with mutilation. However, European Union law seriously lacks any teeth, which is why we are calling for legislation to be applied which will make this horrible practice a crime. And, of course, the European Union can exert a great deal of influence through the trade agreements under the Cotonou agreement which it concludes with countries in which such practices are rife and by introducing extraterritorial legislation. Finally, I should like to call on the , for us to unite in demonstrating our solidarity with the thousands of women who have undergone this horrible procedure and for you to change your decision by tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it is high time that the European Union opened up more to biotechnologies and genetic engineering in the food sector as well. Since the 1980s, plant-transgenesis technology has been making progress everywhere except in Europe. Last year, about 60 million hectares outside Europe were growing genetically improved crops. The European Union is having difficulty in protecting about 10 000 hectares for the experimental cultivation of certain transgenic plants. Allow me to quote the French Académie des Sciences, which says, ‘Transgenic varieties have been rejected in Europe, although there has never been a health problem regarding consumers or damage to the environment’. The Académie goes on to explain that almost all the plants cultivated today are the result of thousands of years of genetic selection from wild plants. Gene exchanges between varieties or species have very often led to profound changes in the morphology of the original wild plant. Many species have been domesticated by man by the addition of different genomes; examples of this include tobacco, wheat and rape. Ever since human beings have tilled the soil, they have been practising genetic engineering without knowing it. While cross-breeding and selective breeding carried out on a hit-and-miss basis by human hands have been accepted, more precisely targeted interventions involving the production of genes are regarded as the work of the devil. As far as the Académie des Sciences is concerned, transgenic foods are not intrinsically any more dangerous than other foods, and this has been recognised by the Codex Alimentarius. Why, then, is there all this fuss, all these vague fears about GMOs? The dogma of the precautionary principle is leading to precautions without any scientific principles at all. I shall be voting in favour of the compromise negotiated with the Council, even though the compromise is too timid. I urge the Commission to do away with the illegal moratorium on GMOs and to ensure that Europe does not miss out in the biotechnology revolution. Is it necessary, Madam President, to remind the House that, at the present time, 95% of people with a doctorate in biology are working on the American continent? That is a disgrace for Europe!

Political group: PSE