GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the European Parliament’s position against anti-personnel mines and in favour of their total ban has already been clearly expressed in various resolutions. The result of Ottawa is due to the work of certain specialised NGOs. I believe that at the next meeting of the contracting parties to the Convention which will take place in Managua, the European Union should contribute to ensuring that the Convention is signed and ratified by more countries. There are 52 which have not signed it and many who are still to ratify it. It should also contribute to ensuring that more resources are provided for the complete clearing of mines, since mines which are still buried are causing death and mutilation throughout the world, and the parties involved – State and non-State agents – should be forced to reach an agreement on a total ban of these mines. Mr President, I will end by asking for recognition and support for the work of NGOs such as the initiative launched by the humanitarian organisation ‘Geneva Appeal’ and others, which are going to contribute to the disappearance of such a lethal and odious weapon as anti-personnel mines.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the results of the preparation of the Johannesburg Conference would not perhaps have been so poor – and the outlook for the Conference so pessimistic – if the parties had been more willing, and above all able, to see beyond their own partial short-term interests and to realise that we are at an extremely important turning point, not only in terms of achieving sustainable development – although this alone would deserve all our efforts – but also of achieving security and governability on a world scale. In the ten years between Rio and Johannesburg, there has been a fundamental change towards a globalised society in which social and economic inequalities seem closely linked to environmental problems and governability in all countries. The eradication of poverty is becoming a priority objective in the world because it is the only way we can guarantee security, governance and equality in a globalised world. After almost thirty years of policies aimed at reconciling economic development, the environment and social well-being, I believe that we have a pretty good knowledge of the range of instruments and measures to be applied in order to achieved balanced growth in a globalised world: transparency and openness of the markets, management of knowledge and innovation, transfer of technologies, the efficiency of our processes and products, the acceptance and application of social and environmental responsibility in all sectors; these are some of the most important measures. We need to approach Johannesburg by strengthening the coalition between government, civil society and the production sector, in order to jointly deal with the main challenges of global sustainability and equality. The European Union has offered clear signs of its desire to lead this process. I hope that in Johannesburg we will be able – and I include the delegation from the European Parliament here – to defend brave, generous and worthy positions which will show us to be what we aspire to be: leaders in the new world order.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it has been a great privilege to serve in a Parliament that has made such great progress in delivering for Europe the constitutional settlement that it needs. Parliament has become now an assured player in the constitutive process and we have assisted Europe to answer definitively the old question about whether the Union could widen and deepen at the same time. The answer is certainly 'yes'. We expect the European Council now to show the political will to bring the IGC to a quick and successful conclusion and to draft the durable, efficient and effective system of democratic government that we need to strengthen the Union and its place in world affairs. However, it is vital that Parliament, which has played such a crucial part in the IGC so far, does not fade at the final phase. President Cox and our representatives, Mr Brok and Mr Hänsch, must carry on playing a full part in the negotiations and resist any weakening of Parliament's powers of codecision and assent. There are some worrying signs in this respect and Commissioner Vitorino is quite right to warn us. Why, for example, is the Irish presidency suddenly seeking in its latest proposals to remove Parliament's power of codecision with respect to the Structural Funds? Perhaps Minister Roche could explain. If the Council wishes to encumber itself with unanimity upon financial questions, that is its own problem, but it cannot be permitted to evade parliamentary accountability. I wish to support the committee's request that, should there be a crisis at the IGC, the President should call a special meeting of the Conference of Presidents. Despite our dispersal across 25 electoral campaigns, we would be able to reassemble quickly to reinforce the President's negotiating position. Please remember that a negative assessment by Parliament on the final conclusions of the IGC would certainly scupper referendum campaigns wherever they spring up.

Political group: ELDR
Despite the respect I have for the rapporteur Mr Méndez de Vigo, today I voted no to his report on the Treaty of Nice; however, this does not mean a no to Europe. The Irish people have not been allowed an adequate debate on the impact of the changes proposed in the Treaty of Nice upon Ireland’s sovereignty and Independence. This Treaty does not have to be decided on until the end of 2002, yet the Irish Government is pressurising the Irish people to vote, although they have only had approximately three weeks to digest the minimum information provided to them. The Irish electorate has the right to know what the consequences of the Treaty are for the people of Ireland and Europe as a whole, including candidate countries. In a recent national poll, nine out of ten Irish people stated that they did not understand the Treaty of Nice and voter apathy is extremely high. This situation I have no doubt is reflected in other Member states and surely it is not the way to engage citizens to feel politically concerned at local, national and European level. There are many areas of concern within the Treaty of Nice for a small nation, some of which are: that Ireland cannot be part of enhanced co-operation because of its corporate and energy tax policies; the future loss of veto, the only sure means by which a small country can influence decisions and protect its interests; the undermining of Ireland's neutrality in an increasingly militarised Europe, in which the Treaty of Nice brings an army, called the Rapid Reaction Force, associated with NATO and a military command structure into the EU for the first time. There is also the deepest concern with a Charter of Fundamental Rights, clearly intended to be legally binding in 2004, as a constitution or constitution-treaty, which through the decisions of the EU Court of Justice could take precedence over our Irish Constitution and our Courts. Our Constitution is a finely crafted document, which enshrines the values and beliefs that have sustained the people of Ireland through the best and worst of times. It enshrines among other things the constitutional protection of life, marriage and family and should not be vulnerable to decisions made without the full, informed consent of the Irish people. Sadly the Christian foundations and heritage of the European Union are conspicuous by their absence from the Charter. Surely an Europe which strives to be a Continental power, proud of its economic progress and intellectual capital should not be afraid to acknowledge its spiritual dimension, a dimension which will lend us strength as we work towards peace and security.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I am not one of those clever members who can already weigh up everything decided in Nice in detail, because I have yet to see the texts. But if we have learned and must learn anything from Nice, then it is that Europe is far too valuable to leave it solely in the hands of the Heads of State and Government. The model of the Intergovernmental Conference has had its day. That is the first and most important lesson to be learned from last week's negotiations. On the positive side, we have managed to break through the power boundaries. This is an old demand which we Bavarians have made time and again and for which we were ridiculed years ago; now it is the basis for Council resolutions. I see this as a huge success. But when I look at the wrangling which took place in Nice, it would perhaps have been more important to start discussing power boundaries straight away. That might have made it easier to find reasonable compromises here. In theory, the Amsterdam leftovers have been dealt with. In practice, however, compromises have been found on the basis of the lowest common denominator. Europe cannot be operated in the long term by working solely to the lowest common denominator. I only hope that Parliament will learn the right lessons from all this. This Parliament must become more self-confident, especially when dealing with the Council of Ministers, if we want to prevent bureaucracy and secret diplomacy from taking over Europe permanently.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like on behalf of the Greek Communist Party and the Greek people as a whole to express our condolences for the victims and our support for those wounded by the earthquake in Turkey last week, adding new wounds to those caused by the earthquake in August. We would like to assure the Turkish people of our support in these terribly trying times. It is vital and urgent that we take all the measures and provide all the funding needed to help deal with the consequences of the recent earthquake disaster in Turkey and to relieve the hundreds of thousands of wounded. The Council and the Commission must ensure that the funding proposals needed are implemented as quickly as possible and, at the same time, ensure that these funds are used solely to restore the damage and relieve the wounded. However, the earthquakes must not be used as an excuse for releasing financial protocols and granting other funds to the Turkish Government which has failed to honour its commitments and comply with the conditions imposed with respect to democratisation, respect for human rights, minority rights, compliance with international law, the settlement of the Cyprus question and cessation of hostilities towards the Kurds. This is why we wish to reiterate our opposition to funding in connection with the implementation of Customs Union and the corresponding proposals in the draft budget for the year 2000. We would like to take this opportunity to stress the more general need for adequate funding to be made available for fast and immediate intervention in order to relieve the wounded and restore damage, as with the recent floods in France and the recent earthquakes in Greece.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking Mr Davies for the splendid and very expert job he has done on the report. Together with Mrs Myller’s report on national emissions ceilings, which is before the Conciliation Committee at the moment, this report will make an important contribution to securing better air quality, especially in the big cities of Europe. It will be an important contribution to preventing and reducing ozone’s harmful effects on the environment and public health. I should like to point out the most important features of Mr Davies's report. First and foremost, it is important that we stick to the WHO's health targets in this area and that those exceedances of these targets that are to be accepted for a number of years are limited as far as possible, in this case to 20 days per year. By means of the report, we shall thus also reject the Council’s wish to be given the option of longer exceedance periods. Secondly, I would draw your attention to the long-term targets for the concentration of ozone in the air. We now have a deadline for when the long-term targets are to be achieved, namely before 2020, except in cases where it is physically impossible to achieve the targets. It will be an important task for both the Commission and Parliament to ensure that the compromise made here concerning what is physically impossible does not in reality become a pretext for doing nothing and to ensure that there is not too much elasticity in the compromise. I would also point out how important it is for information to be given both to the general population and, in particular, to the especially vulnerable population groups too, namely children and the elderly. The report requires that information be provided and that action plans be devised so that rapid intervention is possible if the concentration of ozone is too high. Allow me, finally, also to indicate two other areas included by Mr Davies. The first is the relationship with the applicant countries. I think it is right that we should try to involve the applicant countries as early as possible in this process, as recommended also by those of us in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Ozone pollution is, of course, clearly transboundary in character, a fact which justifies our including as many neighbouring countries as we possibly can from the beginning. Finally, the reporting, which Mr Davies also emphasised in his speech here today, is important if we are to have comparisons not only of initiatives taken in the Member States but also of exceedances which, as a matter of actual fact, occur in the Member States. I believe that, with the adoption of this report, we shall be taking a considerable step forward and acquiring a sound basis for the further negotiations with the Commission and the Council in the Conciliation Committee.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, two minutes are hardly sufficient to relate the appalling figures which describe events in Columbia. I will mention but a few, listed in the last e-mail I received from Amnesty International: 50 civilians were killed last month by paramilitaries; 400 civilian massacres took place during 1999; 3 500 victims of police crimes; 1 000 abductions; 250 000 Colombian civilians have been thrown out of their homes for political reasons. In addition, there has been another massacre in the rural community La Unión, the third in three years. We have a moral obligation to declare that this massacre was perfectly planned, that, nowadays, everything that happens in Columbia happens for a reason. So what can we do? Wait for the next massacre in La Unión or another village to produce yet another resolution expressing our grief or, as some of the Members have suggested – and rightly so – make our voice heard, loud and clear? In my opinion, Parliament must now find the courage to make its voice heard, for, to make reference to Amnesty International once again, all the parties taking part in the conflict are responsible for the violations of human rights in Columbia, but one of them – the paramilitaries – has a greater responsibility. Indeed, the paramilitary groups are crushing the civilian population in a lethal vice. As has been pointed out, President Pastrana appeared before this House and offered to make a substantial effort to bring all the parties to dialogue. It is Parliament's responsibility to call for a system of rules and rights to be re-established, within the Colombian State, most importantly, as well as condemning the current situation in Columbia. The paramilitaries act in agreement and in cahoots with the army, which in many cases – including this one – draw up the death lists. To date, there has been no serious attempt to bring the heads of this alleged paramilitary army to justice – for example Carlos Castaños, who continues to broadcast his interviews on Colombian radio with impunity. We therefore reiterate our support for a peaceful solution and, without hypocrisy, we call upon the Colombian Government to reflect upon the tragic actions of the paramilitaries. Lastly, we call upon the Commission and the Member States to employ all the appropriate political resources to preserve the security of the civilian organisations involved in upholding human rights.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not wish to repeat what Commissioner Lamy has already said, that although the International Criminal Court is not a political instrument, it is starting life in a particularly difficult political context, and that, since 2002, the United States have been clearly trying to forcibly short circuit the Court, both in the UN and by signing bilateral agreements with a considerable number of countries. I would like to say how shocked I am as a parliamentarian by the methods that are being used to put pressure on certain countries – and I am thinking in particular of the pressure that Colombia is under, threatened with the suspension of American aid for combating drug traffickers, and the pressure put on the Baltic countries or other NATO candidate countries – but also the extent to which the whole of Europe is currently dependent on the European Union; and there is a very particular symbolic significance in all of us, the Council, Parliament and the Commission being in agreement. It is absolutely essential that the Italian Presidency should be aware that this International Criminal Court is more than an instrument for fighting the Americans and their unilateralism; it is a way of us ensuring that we restore European coherence in both international policy and international law. We will therefore watch very closely what happens in the Court.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, relations between the European Union and Russia have improved, but not enough. It is worth remembering that almost 40% of Russia’s exports come to the European Union. Just 6% go to the United States of America. Now it is estimated that after enlargement that figure will rise to 60%. At the same time, the Union’s dependence on Russia’s resources is growing: that would seem the prospect for natural gas, for example, in the next decade. It is in Russia too that economic growth these days is fastest in the world. The Russian President has set two objectives in his election campaign: firstly, to create a strong central power based on the rule of law, and secondly to extend economic growth to the vast sections of Russia’s population who are poor. It is in the European Union’s interests that Russia is able to solve its huge problems, from its wide-scale poverty to human rights, freedom of the media and the war in Chechnya. We want to see that economic, political and cultural cooperation can also help us to have an impact on Russia’s problems. We have also had a taste of Russian isolation. In its time it was a gift to Stalin, who pulled down the shutters and began having his own people killed. Now it is important that civil society in Russia, now in its infancy, has our support. This is precisely what many Russians are hoping to obtain from us. Let us not leave them just to get on with it! The Russian leadership claims they often listen to the messages coming from the Union more carefully than they do each other. These aims will serve to allow Russia to join the World Trade Organisation as soon as possible. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement should be reviewed to correspond with today’s needs. Regarding Chechnya, I would say that the elections were problematic, as previous ones have also been, and the Community has been unable to accept them. We propose that there should be an international conference and arbitration with regard to this matter and also that relief organisations should be allowed access to the region promptly.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the discussion on the harmfulness of phthalates, or plastic softeners, has been dragging on for a long time. Today, we in Parliament need to speak out regarding the desirability of a total ban on these substances. Let it be clear that no one in our Group disputes the many useful applications that phthalates have, such as cable casings, and also uses in medical equipment. The snag is that phthalates are also used to soften children’s toys, many of which end up in their mouths, even if they are not intended for that purpose. When, in 1998, reports emerged about the possible harmful effects on children’s health, the European Commission proposed – or tried to propose at any rate – a ban on the application of certain phthalates. Intense consultation with industry to establish a ban from within and to introduce self-regulation in the processing of these substances, came to nothing. In my opinion, and I say this on behalf of the Group, that was very much a missed opportunity. It strikes me as rather odd, though, that the harmfulness of the substances has not been established beyond question. Accordingly, in response to the Commission’s action, we have met with a barrage of contradictory research studies. Consumer organisations pointed out the harmful potential, while industry tried to demonstrate that things were not all that bad. The chairman of the scientific committee too was dragged into the debate, which was certainly not an ideal situation. It is now up to us to assess the proposals. I have not seen a proposal as ridiculous and complex as this one for a long time. I do not know how harmful these phthalates are, but if I do not know, then I need to at least ban a number of these phthalates in line with the precautionary principle, because, in my view, this is also what the internal market wants. Consequently, I hope that the plenary opts in favour of safety, in line with the precautionary principle. Research, however, should not grind to a halt, but rather come up with alternatives to these softeners.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, under Rule 37 of our Rules of Procedure, the Council and the Commission may ask to make a statement to the European Parliament; however it is up to the President of the European Parliament, it is specifically up to you to organise the debate. In this sense, and because the debate is public and European public opinion is horrified by what it has heard, I think that we all have an obligation, if we are to avoid being accused of complicity, to ask the High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union who, until recently was the Secretary-General of ΝΑΤΟ and who is under investigation by the International Tribunal in the Hague for crimes against humanity, according to a statement by the public prosecutor in the Republica and other newspapers, to explain why, as Secretary-General of ΝΑΤΟ, he gave the go-ahead for a mini nuclear war in the Balkans. Especially as Mr Solana has thrown part of the blame on to the European Parliament. You must give a reply here. He has said that we, too, are partly responsible for the mini nuclear war because we called for action in the Balkans.

Political group: GUE-NGL