GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, I should like to start by thanking our fellow MEP, Mrs Dybkjær for an excellent report and welcoming her back to Parliament after her recent weeks’ campaigning. We know that Lone Dybkjær did what she could. I am a man in an EU within which men and women do not have equal opportunities. It is worth repeating that. Sometimes, some people – even colleagues in this Assembly – seem to believe that they do have equal opportunities, but they do not. Just as some people have said, it is enough to look at this Assembly: the majority are men, the majority of those making decisions are men, and when the European Council meets it consists solely of men. There is one female Head of State in Europe. It is therefore gratifying that the European Parliament is represented by a woman in these contexts. More women are needed in decision-making positions, because it is quite simply unacceptable that so much human ability is being lost. Women do have the ability – and without imposing quotas. This week we have taken a great step closer to a reunited Europe. Emphasising how matters stand regarding equality in the candidate countries is a particularly important task in the membership negotiations that are currently in progress. Some problem areas: women often have two jobs, unemployment is higher among women, childcare has deteriorated, there are too few women in decision-making positions, violence against women is on the increase in many candidate countries and several candidate countries are at the centre of the increasing trade in women. What can be done? Rapid membership of the EU will provide economic strength, better conditions for women and greater freedom of choice. The chapter on equality must be accorded equal importance in the membership negotiations. There must be no transitional periods. We must monitor whether the directive on equality is really being incorporated into legislation. Mainstreaming is very important in the internal policies of the candidate countries, too. An ombudsman for equality issues should be introduced, and in the candidate countries too. The EU should pursue a campaign to combat violence against women throughout Eastern and Central Europe. The EU should also take the initiative and organise a UN convention against the trade in human beings. I started by talking about my male status. Perhaps this issue of gender needs to be pointed out in this Assembly. On the basis of my own experience, if I may speak personally, I am convinced that Paragraph 15 of the resolution – stating the importance of men’s involvement in, and access to, good childcare – is the most important paragraph by far if equality and equal conditions are to be achieved for men and women. I should like to conclude by saying that equality begins in the home. If we cannot share tasks and responsibility in the small world of the home, there will never be real equality in the big world outside, either.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the future status of the Charter was one of the four key questions bequeathed to us by the now famous Treaty of Nice for consideration at the IGC of 2004 and since Laeken, it is a central question confronting the Convention. This resolution, should it be passed, will represent a formal contribution to the Convention from the parliamentary delegation. We have looked at the impact so far made by the Charter as a solemnly proclaimed instrument and we have found that much use is made of it by the Ombudsman, by Parliament, by the Commission and even sometimes by the Council. We have found also some uncertainty among the citizens about the Charter's scope as a solemnly proclaimed instrument. For the courts, the Charter is already an important source of reference alongside the ECHR and the constitutional traditions of the Member States. Yet the national constitutional tradition referred to is already broad and, in a Union of 25 plus Member States, it will become improbably vague. Therefore, we conclude that we must incorporate the Charter firmly within the Treaties, so that what is at present an important source of reference will become a central source. Commission Vitorino and his working group in the Convention are considering the technical and semantic niceties that will be involved in incorporation and I look forward to hearing from him how successful the efforts of his working group are proving. This parliamentary resolution refreshes the political story of the Charter. It says why incorporation in the treaties is important and why it should become mandatory upon the Union and upon the Member States, when and, in so far as, they put into effect European law and policy. It also says why the Charter will become an important building block of the further development of the concept of European citizenship. As we enlarge, the Charter succeeds in spelling out for all concerned why fundamental rights are so salient to bringing Europe closer to the citizen. It proposes that we establish for ourselves our fundamental rights regime at the centre of the integration process so that it will stand as a jewel in the crown of our future constitution. I commend the report to Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Langen – although he is not actually here – for the work he has done to carry through the programme both in Parliament and in the Council. The project has been long and problematic. In future too, there will be a need to invest heavily in research into the use of renewable energy sources. Although there is much that is good about the new directive, it is nonetheless not without its defects. One example is the use of peat. Peat cannot be classified as belonging in the same group as fossil fuels. If peat cannot be classified directly as a renewable, non-fossil energy source, it must form its own class, especially as far as the issue of environmental taxation is concerned. It is not right that peat should be judged according to the same criteria as, for example, coal. The development of renewable energy sources is a partial solution to ending the Union’s dependence on imported energy. Research is particularly essential with regard also to the EU’s next round of enlargement. Dependence on imported energy affects worst of all many Eastern European countries, whose economic structure is still suffering from the dependence created in the times of the Soviet Union on Russian energy. The EU must adhere to the Kyoto Protocol on climate. We are all concerned about the environment and our children’s future. The share that renewable energy sources have in total energy production must be increased, but it has to be done in a rational manner. We have to remember that our basic energy production cannot be based on renewables for a long time to come. For that we need a form of energy production that does not harm the climate: nuclear energy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the EU must be a peace organisation and not an arms dealer. The EU should therefore not sell weapons at all, especially not to countries that are in danger of using them in wars. Given that logic, we should not, in the first place, sell weapons to the United States, but not to China either. My ‘no’ to arms exports to China is not only directed against China, but is the expression of a general principle. Everything that has been said in this House about China is true, but there are also positive things. For example, a dialogue has been opened with representatives of the Dalai Lama, about which the Dalai Lama himself is very hopeful. Such a small step is obviously not enough to change the general picture. It would therefore be quite wrong to remove the arms embargo against China, but do not forget that there are also other countries to which we should not sell weapons.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to take this opportunity, as Mr Fischler is still here but will surely not be able to stay for this evening's vote, to say that I am somewhat disappointed. You cannot say that these paltry funds of between EUR 10 and 14 million – granted, we shall get a bit more next year – are satisfactory because 80% are being taken up. I realise that we are making demands on the Member States and that a bit more will be done within the existing legal framework, but we also want a more flexible approach than is possible at present. But I must say that I really am appalled to hear that not one representative in the Council – i.e. not one Member State – had any objection whatsoever; do they really think we need do nothing at all? I think it is quite something that the Member States apparently feel no need to react to what the European Parliament has to say about your report. But we and the beekeepers shall make sure that the Member States at least acknowledge what we have to say about the report, just in case they think there is no need to act. As you know, we have not called for any all-powerful order, but we still take the view that we need direct aid regulations in the medium term. You say they are not warranted at the present time. You have heard the beekeepers, they take quite a different view and you must be fully aware of what is happening in this sector. We shall also ensure that beekeepers are better informed about the facilities available under structural policy and measures to promote agricultural produce, but here too we have very limited funds for numerous quality products. Mr President, I just wanted to say this to Mr Fischler because I already know what he has told us. I had hoped for something more, rather than being hung out to dry!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Mr Swiebel asserted a moment ago, the statements by the Namibian President, Sam Nujoma, regarding homosexuals in Namibia, are nothing short of a witch-hunt. Sexual orientation towards people of the same sex is of all times and all cultures. Discrimination against, and persecution of, people with this orientation who openly acknowledge it are no longer of all times and all cultures. Fortunately, there is a steady decrease in discrimination in a large number of countries. Incitement to exclude, and use violence against, people of this orientation is increasingly becoming less acceptable. A good example is South Africa. After the apartheid regime was abolished, a clause was included in the constitution which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The argument used by the Namibian President that homosexuality is a Western phenomenon, an aberration of the West, is a nonsense argument. He only needs to look at his South African neighbours, something which, in fact, his colleagues Mr Mugabe and Mr Museveni should also do.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the question about the state of the shipbuilding industry in the Community is prompted by deep concern about the future of this sector. On the one hand, international competition remains extremely distorted. The market, which is characterised by artificially low prices, in particular from Korea, can still only be described as extremely anti-competitive. On the other hand, the demands made by the European Parliament in its resolution of 14 December of last year have so far, either, not been met at all, or, only to an insufficient extent. It remains unclear how the European shipbuilding industry can be supported so as further to improve its international competitiveness. It remains unclear how rigorously the Commission has responded to Parliament's call for a dispute settlement procedure to be initiated with the Republic of Korea before the World Trade Organisation. The decisions made so far in this respect by the Commission, and also by the Council, have been inconsistent and illogical in important areas. On the one hand, they have established that Korea has clearly violated the agreements made; on the other, they have so far neglected to take immediate and appropriate action against this. This can only be to the detriment of European shipyards. Only in May 2001, when the situation is examined more closely, will it be recognised that the Union's shipyards have been at the mercy of persistently unfair competition for almost half a year. This means additional burdens and dangers in an already complicated situation. It may be disastrous for individual companies. In this acute situation, competition is being distorted and livelihoods are being threatened, and the European Union risks suffering serious strategic damage if action is not taken more quickly and more systematically against obvious unfair practices. The course of events so far really does seem rather odd. Allow me to draw a comparison between this and a sporting competition. How do you think a competitor feels who has just recovered from a serious illness and is sent into the boxing ring? There he comes up against a tough opponent who, despite having been proven guilty of taking drugs several times, still has not been banned. On the contrary, the prizes are increasing. This is an opponent who already habitually hits below the belt, while the referee looks on indifferently and the judges argue about what the drug-taker's illegal punches are worth – full or half points!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Prodi, we owe you a big thank you. It took courage to say that the Stability and Growth Pact is stupid, and you have shown even more courage today in persevering and clearly defending your point of view. We now need to go further, and revise this Pact and set a new objective. The Pact is stupid when your house is on fire, and you are right, we must stop burying our heads in the sand. The financial crisis is even more serious in Europe than it is in the United States. We must be prepared for at least two difficult years of restructuring, with the inevitable social consequences that this will entail. And we will not be able to overcome this crisis without strong public initiatives, which will require use of the budget. The Pact is also stupid when the Union is moving away from the Lisbon objectives, as you mentioned. It is stupid when enlargement would require a Pact for the countries joining the Union to bring their economies into line with those of the current Member States, with practical solidarity. A Stability and Growth Pact worthy of the name would protect public spending of general interest, put a stop to fiscal competition that scorns ethics and effectiveness, provide the Union with a real budget, and guarantee the Member States’ capacity for action, while maintaining a discipline of control over public debt. Mr Prodi, you are demanding that the Commission be given real authority over the coordination of economic policies, but we want more than early warnings and the authority to take corrective action. What we want most of all is for the Union to adopt an economic policy that addresses the current economic situation and sustainable development, and although the Commission is in effect the only executive body designed to promote common interests, it does not yet have the necessary culture and legitimacy to implement an economic policy That is why we are protesting so that the future constitution of the Union clearly establishes a new legitimacy and political will. The Union would no longer be merely a marketplace but would participate in societal choices and concepts relating to the public economy. Its mandate would come from the people and the powers of civil society, and parliaments would be set up to draft and monitor decisions. (Applause from the left)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the proposed ECIP development programme provides a pretty picture of the European Commission’s mismanagement. Although this programme is heading in the right direction, i.e. technology transfer to developing countries, the Commission has, perhaps unwittingly, applied a brake. The programme has been running for twelve years and the Commission has waited right until it is about to end before considering whether to carry on with it. As with other programmes, the Commission has not looked into the consequences of a possible end to this programme, the implications for the continuity of actions already undertaken or for the situation affecting partner businesses and jobs. It appears that, last year, the EUR 90 million that were budgeted for this programme were not even used, due to a lack of human resources available to study the dossiers, which are piled up on a desk somewhere in Brussels. At the same time, the administrative procedures have become more cumbersome with every passing year, yet the personnel running the programme have not seen any increase in their staffing numbers. Similarly, business partners were not informed of the possible termination of the programme. Lastly, the criteria for the distribution of funds between the different foci of the programme, particularly the social rights of workers, have remained impenetrably vague. In light of what I have just said, we ask the Commission to look into the means, firstly, of producing a rapid evaluation of the assessment and, secondly, of re-establishing the programme whilst improving its transparency and maintaining the level of its budget.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the proposal and adoption of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights should meet with very broad consensus. In my opinion, the only people who can justify voting against the adoption of the Charter are those who are against the European Union, as some of those who have spoken today clearly are. I do not understand how anyone can reject the Charter because it does not cover everything which they would like it to. The hopes of no one person here have been fully realised because the Charter cannot mirror the views of one section of the population alone, it must be the common point of reference of all those who feel that they are European citizens, in respect for the differences of others and peaceful co-existence. Could we have done better? I think so, if only because not everything I proposed was accepted. In this case, would it be better not to do anything? Should we reject the Charter? Certainly not! I repeat, this Charter turns the Union into a Community of rights; it is a step forwards in the process of constitutionalisation of the Union and it is the first international document to contain, according to the principle of the indivisibility of fundamental rights, civil and political rights, economic and social rights and new rights, all together. I fail to understand those who say that it is useless and that it is made up of nothing but generalisations and fine words. To assert this is to disregard the history of the institutions: 'liberty, equality, fraternity’ are also fine words, but they formed the basis of many of Europe's legal systems. It is on the basis of formulae such as these articles that, in time, our law-courts guaranteed our fundamental rights. Let us leave it to cynical reactionaries to maintain that only strength or money count for anything and that anything else is merely words. No, the words which embody our principles, our values and our fundamental rights are powerful if we embrace them and apply them to our civil lifestyles. Therefore, let us adopt the Charter and take the words it contains seriously, let us prevent them being diluted, undervalued or ignored. We must take our rights seriously if we want governments to respect them and legal systems to guarantee them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the motto we need to adopt for negotiating our agricultural policy at the WTO is: ‘More empty words? No, thank you. Specific proposals? Yes, please’. And the proposals and the timetable for applying them are nothing if not specific. The overall package being contributed to the forthcoming WTO negotiations by the European Union puts the ball very firmly in the European Union’s court. Rather than just tabling proposals, it needs to make a studied demand for something in return. We need to know, for example, what the other developed countries are going to do and which parts of the system of protection for European Union farmers need to be safeguarded. While we are on the subject of protecting our farmers, and I mean the farmers of the 25 Member States of the European Union, not just the 15, we need first for the multifunctionality model of European agriculture to be recognised and protected. Secondly, the review of the common agricultural policy – and the Socialists’ agree with the general philosophy here – must not pay the price for any misplaced commitments undertaken at the negotiations. Thirdly, as far as the environmental dimension of rural development, striking an ecological balance, food standards and so on are concerned, the European Union must lobby for a common clause for all countries based on its standards. It is both pointless and unacceptable to make it easier to import agricultural produce from developing countries which do not meet European standards. Finally, we are not doing poor countries and their farmers any favours if we manage to increase farmers’ incomes in poor countries, merely so that the developed countries can sell them extortionately expensive AIDS drugs, for example. In other words, what we need at the negotiations are not just impressive proposals of good intent; we need to juxtapose them with social benefits, we need a certain type of negotiation which serves broader social interests.

Political group: PSE
This vote entirely distorts the spirit of the directive on temporary work. Equal pay for equal work, certainly, but the key issue is the reference point. For the Commission, the reference point was clear: the company employing the worker was the reference point. Now, the salary of a temporary worker would have to be assessed according to the scale of salaries in the temporary employment agency. This is a subtle but decisive shift, because by its nature it legitimises a two-tier employment market, or worse the creation of real networks of slave traders slashing prices. Those who welcome this vote are short sighted, because establishing a salary division between temporary workers and the workers in the companies employing them deals a fatal blow to social cohesion, and that is the Achilles heel of temporary work. Integration cannot be legislated. Temporary workers have more accidents than other workers and suffer more harassment. They pay very dearly for their status. The social reality is intractable. If they are paid less for identical work in a company, they will lose any chance of being integrated into it. Are temporary workers just like any other worker? No they are not! And this directive, which is dead before it is born, will certainly not bring them justice.

Political group: PSE