GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my good friend Olivier Dupuis spoke on quite the wrong subject. We are speaking today about southern Serbia and Kosovo. We are not discussing Serbia and current policy in Serbia proper. I agree with much of what you said, Olivier. Believe me, those Members who were in Belgrade have taken a clear line on the conditions. For us, there can be no money unless the conditions are fulfilled. No one has ever disputed that, apart from Commission President Prodi, whom I hereby urge to desist from such comments. But let me come back to today’s debate. It is a matter of how things stand now in Kosovo. I agree with Mr Lagendijk on this point. Unless we know quite soon what is to happen next in Kosovo, the difficulties will simply accumulate down there. The problem is that KFOR troops have become the targets of Serbian and Albanian attacks, although KFOR is actually there to protect both of these ethnic groups. The problem, in a nutshell, is that Mr Hækkerup will have to call elections very soon. To do that, he must know what powers the elected bodies will have. But we need these bodies so that the Serbian side has Kosovar negotiating partners. Now we have the subject of southern Serbia. I believe that KFOR, like other bodies, has not done all it should have done there. Where have the weapons come from for these new extremists? They have, of course, been transferred from the old KLA to the new KLA. In my view, KFOR, with its 50 000-strong force in Kosovo, ought to be able to establish order in the Presevo Valley. I appeal to KFOR to do so, lest we lose our credibility in that corner of the Balkans. I also believe, of course, in the truth of what the Mayor of Presevo said in Belgrade, namely that the population of Kosovo would like to remain in Serbia if only the Albanians in the region could be treated at long last on a par with the Serbs. They want to be part of everything that Yugoslav citizenship implies. I believe the government’s new plan is good. It is pursuing the right path, and we should support it. To tell the truth, I am a little saddened that Mr Kostuníca has said it will all happen without supervision by the EU. Why should we not play a part? We are good mediators. We can help the Serbs and Albanians to live together in peace, and I hope we shall be allowed to help them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, of the various aspects dealt with in this debate, I would like to comment on the following: firstly, there has unquestionably been a serious crisis in the application of the bases of monetary union and the euro, which damage their credibility. Secondly, I would take up the famous phrase that the European Union has been built on the basis of crisis and we should learn the lesson from this crisis, particularly in relation to an aspect which has already been mentioned by Commissioner Solbes, and which I fully support, which consists of having a genuine direction for economic policy, something that he has called European governance. We have an asymmetric situation in a monetary policy which is much better defined than the economic policy. I hope that this crisis will serve to provide us with this economic governance which this Parliament has always called for, and most recently, if you will allow me to be immodest, in my report on the international role of the euro. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
deputising for the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I am standing in for my colleague, Mr Mombaur, who is unable to attend as he is unwell, to give the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. The committee's opinion was originally adopted in April 1999, in the last Parliament, and was readopted by the committee in this Parliament by an overwhelming majority with the original wording. The draftsman, Mr Mombaur, noted that only two things had changed in the two years. I should like to quote his comments that: 'First, the Federal German Government's policy of ending electricity production at nuclear power stations after a further 32 years has shown clearly that, at least in the case of the transport of spent fuel elements, safety problems do not exist. Secondly, it has been made clear that a change of government in one Member State does not provide a legal basis for terminating agreements concluded at intergovernmental level.' Six conclusions were adopted by the Industry Committee, largely of a technical nature, to emphasise the low levels of radioactivity and exposure involved, particularly in comparison with naturally occurring background radiation. I note conclusions 1 and 2 concerning the Standing Working Group on the safe transport of radioactive materials in the European Union, which was established in 1982 at Parliament's request, which call for its work to continue and for its proceedings to be made public. I am intrigued to see Commissioner Lamy here this afternoon. Does this means the Commission is intending to extend the trade in nuclear materials beyond the boundaries of the European Union?

Political group: PPE-DE
For a long time, India was a stable country with Hindus and Muslims coexisting peacefully alongside one another. Last week's terrorist attacks in Mumbai might well spell the beginning of increasing violence between representatives of the religious communities. I certainly hope it will not. One of the suspects has already indicated that with this act, he wanted to take revenge for last year's anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, which claimed the lives of 2 000 Muslims. Developments in India over the past fifty years had been typified by cultural diversity and a heterogeneous society. Over the past ten years, however, we have witnessed increasing alienation between Muslims and Hindus. The immediate cause is the issue involving the temple of the god Ram. The root cause, however, is to be sought more in the area of looming Hindu nationalism, where faith and national identity coincide. Hindus fear Muslims and Christians, particularly demographically speaking. Finally, needless to say, friction with Pakistan is continually placing a heavy strain on relations between them, including in India. The Indian Government should take the problems seriously, and it appears now to be doing so. An escalation must be avoided at all costs. I have tabled an amendment in which the Indian Government is urged to draw up a plan of action in this respect. India is not the only country that is facing tension between religions. Almost half of the recent violent conflicts in the world have a religious dimension. Consequently, I have expressly asked for this issue to be highlighted in my human rights report. An institutionalised dialogue should be set up between the most important world religions. The European Union should also look into this issue. For a long time, India was a good example of the peaceful co-existence of religions. It should pull out all the stops in order to again become the peaceful, stable country which it had been for such a long time.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my first point is that this is where one normally praises the rapporteur. I cannot, unfortunately, do that on this occasion, as the rapporteur did not succeed in developing a discussion in the committee that would lead to a common position by Parliament on the Commission's proposals, nor, indeed, did he make the effort to do so. I see this as a great pity, as a core report and a core position on the part of Parliament are just what is needed. The , by contrast, have a clear position. They reject all attempts to protect vested rights and the exceptions to them. Solidarity between regions must remain the supreme imperative, whilst there must not be such a thing as first and second-class Europe. In consequence, the Structural Funds must primarily benefit the poorest regions, which just happen to be in the East. That means that a phasing-out is at the same time an important instrument, and it also cushions the present regions in receipt of support. Option 2 highlights the problems and offers a solution, and hence it is Option 2 that enjoys our full support. At the same time though – and this is my next point – our group objects to the Commission's tactic of involving the candidate countries in the management of the Structural Funds at too late a stage and then making a saving at the end of the day. Last week’s proposal strikes me as scandalous. It economises on the cohesion policy rather than introducing it earlier, in the pre-accession process. That is why we urge that a start be made now, with the candidate countries, on phasing-in, on setting up the payment agencies, on training in the management of Structural Funds, in order to make decentralised structural policy, rather than centralised project-based policy, the objective of the Structural Funds. Future coalition policy must be characterised by sustainable development and participation by local actors, and we must make a start on this now.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the first Summit in Río de Janeiro in June 1999 ended with the decision to establish a strategic bi-regional partnership, but the 54 priorities of the action plan decided on at the end of the Summit have largely not been complied with yet. Moving beyond words, for us the challenge of the Madrid Summit and the initiative of a global strategic partnership consists of offering an option which is fundamentally different to that of the United States. I believe we will have been too unambitious if all we do is repeat that our priority is the establishment of free trade areas in countries such as Mexico or Chile. Or if we say how good the policies of the International Monetary Fund in Argentina are, while ignoring the data indicating that 41% if the population in Latin America is still living in poverty, that 56% of the income they derive from exports is used to pay debts, and that in countries with which Europe has agreements that are seen as models – such as Mexico –extremely serious violations of human rights are still taking place. We will also have been too unambitious if we allow our multinationals to treat their workers in a way which would be considered unacceptable in Europe, as is the case with the German company Continental Tyres in Mexico, or if we intend to intervene in the Colombian conflict simply by producing prescription lists to try to define who is a terrorist and who is not. Finally, Mr President, we do not want to forget that the Spanish Presidency was very careful about accepting the attempted coup d’état in Venezuela – I do not know how else to describe this acceptance – and that this had a very negative effect in Latin America, whose governments, in contrast, recognised the democratic value of the Chávez Government. With regard to the resolution, we ask – and I will end here, Mr President – that we stick to the compromise agreed by the groups and that we do not vote for an amendment which could seriously complicate the situation of the hostages in Colombia, by introducing the idea that we have to close the door to all types of dialogue. We therefore sincerely hope that this House will not approve the amendment proposed by the European People’s Party.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is now exactly 20 years since I was lucky enough to get speaking time on my first day in Parliament. I am particularly pleased that I caught your eye on my last day in Parliament! (Applause) As I look around I see lots of familiar faces, amongst them some silver threads among the gold. I would like, on this my last occasion, to make a plea on behalf of the Commissioners from small countries: small may be beautiful, but small can also be highly competent, colourful and efficient. I believe very strongly that Parliament and the Commission have been very ably served by the Commissioners from small countries – naturally, in this context I think of my own country. I would hope to see in the future – particularly as other small countries are now present and we are no longer in a minority – the continuing, full participation of Commissioners from smaller countries. I would like to express, in this my final moment in Parliament, my deep appreciation to Parliament, the Commission and all the institutions, and also to my country for having given me the privilege of having a ringside seat at some of the most momentous political occasions of the last hundred years. Thank you. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also welcome the progress made in this report on the Fiscalis programme for the next five years. I would particularly like to welcome and draw attention to the statement in the common position. As the rapporteur has already mentioned, it points out that this is not a political programme, but one designed to enhance administrative cooperation between Member States' tax officials. It is important that we are clear about this objective. We are talking here about improving administration, and not in any way about tax harmonisation. When it was first proposed that the extension of the programme was going to be aimed at direct taxation, there was a lot of concern, particularly in the UK, that this might lead to measures to introduce harmonisation of direct taxes. We therefore welcome the fact that the common position clearly states this will not happen. If I may speak on behalf of the UK once again, we particularly welcome this because we have been among the most active users of the Fiscalis programme over the last few years. We think it is very valuable, so I would certainly be concerned if anything happened to detract from the programme and make it more difficult for certain Member States to take part in it. The programme has much to offer. It has introduced exchanges of officials; it has introduced seminars on tax issues of common interest; it has provided multilateral control exercises, it has developed professional training, such as audit skills; it has improved language training and it has maintained and developed communication and information exchange systems. That is all very good stuff and to be welcomed, continued and improved upon. What we are always trying to do in these sort of situations is improve the way that the systems work and get things to work better. Certainly, that has been one of the achievements of the Fiscalis programme. Therefore, it is to be regretted, as the Commissioner said, that we are seeing a cut in the budget. All we can hope is that the budget, as it now stands, will be adequate to take the programme forward. So, on the whole, I welcome the common position and the fact that it looks as if we are going to be able to achieve an agreement and get the programme extended. I also welcome the fact that we are very clear now that this is not about tax harmonisation in any way, but about administrative systems.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think this does indeed represent a very significant change in, or clarification of, the American position, and a position of this sort can indeed drive a new wedge between the United States and Europe. That is why it is important that the issue should be discussed. If it is argued that there is too little time available, then it could, of course, be combined with discussion of trans-Atlantic relations, in which the Middle East presents a major political problem. The fact that there are, of course, others is no excuse; if it really comes to it, it could be discussed along with trans-Atlantic relations, although this is an important issue and any statement would have to address it separately. (Parliament agreed to the request) President. As you know, we will have debates on Cyprus and transatlantic relations that day. Those debates may run over into Question Time. I should like to signal that, because Cyprus needs a space on our agenda. Indeed, apart from the Middle East there are many transatlantic issues that also need their space. So I point out to you that exceptionally, on this occasion – and I extend my apologies to Mr Posselt in advance, as well as to Mr Puerta, our Vice-President who keeps telling us not to do these things – we may run over into Question Time.(3)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the draft resolution proposes to increase the European Union’s own resources and to distribute them among the States in a different way. The real problem is not between States, or between the States and the European Union. The real problem is between social classes. Of course, the draft resolution states, hypocritically, that this should not lead to an increase in the burden of charge on the European citizen. But it seems obvious that this is just an empty hope, and that future European taxes will be added to the others. I am all the more opposed to any idea of increasing taxes because taxation, whether it be national or European, bears down on the working classes in particular. Throughout Europe the main taxation resource is the indirect taxes which are particularly unfair since they are paid by both the poorest and millionaires at the same rate. Thus, the most badly paid employees and even the unemployed or the homeless, when paying VAT on their food, are contributing towards financing the European institutions which, nonetheless, have not undertaken a single measure in their favour. The basic raison d'être of the European Union is to favour large firms by sweeping the obstacles out of their path, unifying their market in Europe and supporting them on the international market. And if it is necessary to pay more for the European institutions which are working on their behalf, well then, let the major firms pay, let us tax their profits and the dividends of shareholders, let them be forced to pay.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I can understand the reasoning behind not being able to do it electronically, because you cannot check whether everyone uses their card. I can understand why you would have to take a head count. I would like to know exactly how many people you counted in the chamber today? Straight in front of me I can see at least four people, just in this row here, who are Group staff – not Members. How can you, from up there, see exactly which people are Members and which are staff and what the actual figures are?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the aim of today’s debate is to take stock of the fight against terrorism one year on from 11 September. How has the EU reacted to this tragic event? It has demonstrated its solidarity and will to support the United States, it has alerted people to the risk of linking terrorism to the Islamic Arab world and has speeded up integration in the fight against terrorism by means of an action plan consisting of more than 60 measures and a series of framework decisions, including the European arrest warrant and police cooperation in the fight against terrorism. It has highlighted the urgent need to find political means to resolve conflicts on which terrorist fanaticism feeds, not least the Israeli-Palestinian question. The determination to eradicate terrorism and the urgent need to set up new and effective instruments to achieve this cannot, under any circumstances, disproportionately affect individual rights, freedoms and guarantees. It is the affirmation of the intangibility of fundamental rights that underpins a public authority’s legitimacy to use force in democracies. By the same token, the relentless fight against the terrorist threat must be definitively limited under international law. Totalitarian societies hold the primacy of the law in contempt both at national level and in international relations. The concept of international legality is the invention of democracies. If the States that have fallen victim to terrorism react to this threat by breaching the rules and principles of international law, they will be giving the criminals an unexpected boost, which would also constitute a step backwards for civilisation. The fanatical hatred that leads human beings to attack others and to commit suicide is often fed by ongoing situations of injustice or humiliation. This fact must not be interpreted as any kind of justification for the odious attacks against civilian populations but as a factor that is crucial to understanding this phenomenon of violence. At the strictly European level, we must here emphasise and condemn the inability and lack of will persistently demonstrated by the governments of the Member States to follow up the proposal to harmonise policies and to create common instruments to combat terrorism that were put forward, in a timely manner, by the Commission. Terrorism is a threat that requires an integrated and supranational response. Within European territory, this response is still failing to give sufficient signs of life.

Political group: PSE
I worry that the European Union is on a slippery slope, with the recent plethora of measures reducing civil liberties. Unfortunately, Europe is to acquire an arrest warrant before it acquires a constitution. This being the case, the EU-USA extradition agreement as part of the fight against terrorism is particularly worrying. Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted by the European Union Council in Nice in France on 7 December 2000 does not allow anyone to be sentenced to death. This being so, it is unthinkable to cooperate on extradition to the USA, which has the death penalty and where the conditions for a fair trial do not apply following the courts martial or the detention of hundreds of immigrants with no judicial guarantees. Even if people are only extradited to the USA if the USA promises that 'the death penalty will not be applied', the death penalty may be imposed by the court without being enforced. In this way, with this agreement with the USA on criminal matters, the European Union is reintroducing the death penalty through the back door. And that is a huge step backwards. Finally, I should point out that the USA is applying the death penalty en masse in Afghanistan without even any judgements from their own courts. This was confirmed both by Defence Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday when he said that we would kill Al Qaeda and in its use of the 15000 pound daisy cutter bomb, which is the most powerful non-nuclear bomb of mass destruction. Dismantling the Taliban and Al Qaeda and punishing those responsible for the crime perpetrated on 11 September in order to set an example is one thing and the mass murder of all its members and supporters, which not even the Nazis suffered, is another. It is Europe's duty to react.

Political group: GUE-NGL