GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, in refusing to lift the ban on British beef and veal, the French Government has decided to face a limited and short-lived crisis with its European partners rather than risk a scandal breaking in a few months or years linked to Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. This decision is based on the scientific conclusions of the French Food Safety Agency which, while acknowledging that progress has been made, has identified continuing and serious potential risks, as demonstrated by the persistence of the disease. Seattle has also affected this decision, with the growing importance of the precautionary principle and the pre-eminence of health over the market. There is no point today in making things worse or in exacerbating Francophobe or Anglophobe feelings. We are right to be careful. It is the inadequacy of the guarantees on the definition and implementation of testing programmes and, in particular, the lack of European regulation on labelling and traceability, which has led France to this decision. In addition to these elements, the efforts made in recent weeks, which no one disputes, must be clarified and supplemented in particular by the establishment of a compulsory labelling and traceability system from the producer to the consumer. This would clearly allow the consumer to be reassured and would also combat the re-routing of products in the context of triangular trade. Beyond this specific case, should we not be working to impose the pre-eminence of the precautionary principle over all other considerations in trade, both within the EU and with third countries? Are the Commission and Council not using a similar approach to that of the French Government in rightly opposing the lifting of the ban on hormone-treated meat originating from the United States of America, despite the WTO injunctions?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as other Members have already said, the Kursk accident demonstrates that even ten years after the end of the Cold War, military objectives are still considered more important than human life. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathy for the families who have been bereaved of their fathers and sons. We know that it is not impossible that more people will yet be affected by this accident. Everyone is aware of the dangers posed by two nuclear reactors lying on the sea bed. However, no one knows how great the danger and the insidious impact on people's health will be. I therefore believe that we can only draw one conclusion from this accident: we have to finally admit that despite the end of the Cold War we – in both the East and the West – are still arming and rearming ourselves, and this is incredibly dangerous and will lead to people being killed. So we must finally put an end to this. There can only be one response to this accident, and that response is ‘disarmament now’. This disarmament will only work if it is applied equally by the East and the West. That also means that it has to be pursued jointly, in cooperation. It must not mean that people like Alexander Nikitin, who take part in this and thus help to fight the continuing dangers to humanity of the Cold War and of armament, are eliminated. I call on the Commission to make it crystal clear to the Russian Government that we will not accept further legal judgments against Nikitin or tolerate his being put on trial again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I believe we are all happy with the quality of this Parliament’s delegation to the Convention’s contribution. Today, our only points of contact are our two representatives within the Intergovernmental Conference. I would like to ask you the following question, Mr President: do you believe that the little arrangements behind closed doors within one of our groups contribute to consolidating the authority which our two representatives require within this Conference? Why, Mr President, has the group you belong to not represented the candidature of Mr Duff, which would have had a certain legitimacy, I believe, in terms of representing us in this Conference?

Political group: PSE
Some people say that I talk too much in this House, in my explanations of vote, but, as you know, Mr President, I represent the Italian Pensioners’ Party, and pensioners do everything, including eat pan-fried fish. They said to me: ‘We love eating fish from Guinea, which you are debating, but we would like it to be caught by fishermen from Guinea, not by European fishermen who pay to enter Guinean waters and to be allowed to catch fish who speak ‘Guinean’ and make a profit out of them, leaving the fishermen of Guinea even poorer and more destitute’. Therefore, while I voted for the motion, I would stress that I am opposed to fisheries agreements of this kind. Report: Miguélez Ramos (A5-0228/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order: it will hardly surprise the House if, on behalf of my Group, I support the position you have taken. But I would nonetheless urge you in your intervention at the European Council in Barcelona to make the point very strongly that we as a House are not happy with the procedure that has been taken and that we hope in the future to see a much more constructive and collaborative approach to us from the other institutions.

Political group: ELDR
In the wake of the breakdown of IGC negotiations on the proposed draft Constitution of the European Union, I welcome the breathing space which will result. I urge the UK Government to make maximum use of this interval to review its position on key areas of concern to Scotland. The reference to marine biological resource conservation must be removed from the list of exclusive competences. Furthermore, assurances are still required in relation to the protection of Scotland's offshore oil and gas reserves and the need to ensure that control and licensing powers are not conferred upon the EU. The example set by many small nations, independently negotiating their own terms and conditions at the IGC, underlines the need for Scotland to regain her independence and therefore the full rights of participation and voting in all international negotiations.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we share the concerns about the major delays facing these projects, which have been claimed to be priority projects. In connection with some of the amendments adopted in committee, we welcome the granting of candidate countries the right to observe proceedings which concern them and their country. We also welcome the acceptance of the compromise solution of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy regarding energy products. Amendments were also accepted on including waterway projects and linking the allocation of funds to the reduction of traffic growth and air pollution. We did, however, vote against the report in committee because of a number of outstanding concerns, which we will try to address tomorrow in a series of amendments and requests for split votes. These include the demand that in a new post-2006 financial framework more money should be allocated to TENs. We are not convinced that should be the case. We also have concerns about the inclusion of telecoms projects. In connection with penalties or claw-back, our view is that the report should follow the text of the Bradbourn report on TENs and demand that if projects are not substantially complete after 15 years, they should be taken off the list. Finally, I have a strong concern that the reference to the use of private capital could be claimed to be, or inferred to be, an obligation to use private capital. We will be asking for a split vote in order to isolate these words, to prevent such an inference.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this topic involves much more than just a traffic problem. It is a matter of how the European Union treats its promises to newcomers, the rights of its smaller Member States and interests other than simply those of the economy. For years, Switzerland and Austria have protected their Alpine valleys against noise and air pollution from goods traffic. That kind of protection gains in importance as this environmentally-unfriendly means of transport increases. When Austria joined the European Union, a compromise was agreed that enabled this Member State partially to maintain this protection by reducing NOx emissions by 60% between 1992 and 2004. Others also benefit from that measure, since it encourages the restriction of transport or its transfer to rail connections that are better for people and the environment. The underlying principle was not to wait for cleaner technologies, but to empower a government to limit transport by establishing ceilings. Seven years after this compromise, the Commission is trying unilaterally to deprive Austria of that right and at this late stage to give free rein to north-south road traffic, even if the limit of 108% is exceeded. If the European Union behaves in this way with its smaller Member States, that will increasingly provoke antagonism and opposition. The Confederal Group of the supports the rapporteur in his rejection of this attack by the Commission, the large Member States and the big transport conglomerates.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I also wish to address item 23 in yesterday's Minutes concerning security. We are all very grateful for the explanation that you have given about how the matter occurred yesterday, and it is very important that the House recognises the point that you also made, namely that this is a subject that the Bureau is also currently discussing. It is an extremely serious and vitally important point, because security in this House is not good enough. What happened yesterday, however, is slightly different, because it calls into question the status and the responsibility of individual Members as to whom they invite into this House. (Applause) We have had a very lively discussion in our own political group this morning on this matter, and I am going to ask you, Madam President, to convene a special meeting of the Bureau so that all these matters can be discussed. I recognise that it is already on the agenda of the Bureau and is an on-going discussion, but it is so important that we have time to consider the issue properly that I believe we need a special meeting of the Bureau and I hereby request you to convene that meeting.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank Mr Busquin for his initiative, because the European Investment Bank has an excellent set of tools for actively supporting research. My question is, can the European Investment Bank also grant indirect subsidies, e.g. to organisations helping small and medium-sized enterprises, so that the small and medium-sized economy in Europe which, as you know, accounts for 60% of the gross national product and employs two-thirds of the workforce, can also benefit. We need indirect arrangements here too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we all stressed, both today and yesterday, the importance that we attach to Mediterranean policy and to the need to urgently reinvigorate the Barcelona Process, which is all too often disregarded. The past year has not lived up to these expectations. Admittedly, it was possible to hold another Euro-Mediterranean conference during the French Presidency, but this meeting produced few decisions and, above all, no genuine strategy. Furthermore, I believe that it is time to give our Mediterranean strategy a firm foundation and to dissociate it from the vicissitudes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I sincerely hope that the European Union will achieve its goal of strengthening economic, political and cultural ties with the countries of the Mediterranean Basin. We shall soon be discussing the partnership agreement between the European Union and Egypt. I am delighted that this agreement was finally signed last week. As the rapporteur on Egypt, I sincerely hope that we can take this opportunity to encourage the other partners who have not yet signed up to an agreement to do so as soon as possible. It is also worth considering the European Parliament’s role in this process, which is still too limited. Then perhaps we might be able to shape the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum on the model of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly, which meets twice yearly and can set up working parties and initiate fact-finding missions. We could also, perhaps, improve the organisation of Parliament’s regular participation in ministerial meetings between the Barcelona Process members. To sum up, Mr President, I would like to ask the Council and the Commission to explicitly recognise the role of towns and large cities, and I should like to thank Mr Naïr, the rapporteur, for agreeing to table an amendment that I made to his excellent report. The Mediterranean countries should be encouraged to develop their relations and to share their experiences on specific urban issues. The problems of modern times are most serious within towns and large cities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am taking the liberty of speaking here in response to the problem of asylum seekers from the PECO countries. I feel this problem clearly raises the question of the European Union’s ability to determine the rights and statutes of European citizens or future European citizens with regard to the right of asylum, on the eve of the great challenge of the decisions on enlargement. The addition of the protocol on the right of asylum to the Treaty of Amsterdam prohibits Member States of the European Union from considering a request for asylum submitted by a national of another Member State. In doing so, the Treaty introduces discrimination against European citizens based on their nationality. This runs counter to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which defines a refugee as ‘any person who [has] a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion’. The grounds for the incorporation of this protocol are, on the one hand, that the Member States have to respect the rule of law, democracy and human rights and possess the internal and external legal resources to put an end to violations of these legal principles, and, on the other, that nationals of the Member States already have rights in the other Member States which render useless the right of asylum, the right to free movement, free establishment, free choice of residence and other laws relating to citizenship. What can be said, however, of the recent condemnation of various Member States by the European Court of Human Rights, or the Amnesty International reports which, every year, denounce violations of fundamental rights in most of the Member States? Moreover, how can we know what the future holds and state with absolute certainty that the Member States or future Member States of the European Union are above any form of abuse? The attitude to minorities is a good example of this. Let us ensure that everyone can claim the right of asylum within the European Union. Let us ensure that everyone can have their request for asylum considered. Would that not be the best way of testing our democratic commitment?

Political group: PSE
The aim of the report is to strengthen the few large fishing companies through economic and institutional measures in order to improve their competitiveness. As excuses for this strengthening, the rapporteur cites the indisputably high nutritional value of the product, its economic value, employment, maintaining stocks etc. These excuses conceal the fact that this activity concerns a few large companies in the ΕU and that the developed countries overexploit the world's marine wealth at the expense of poor and developing countries, in that the international fishing agreements are imbalanced, safeguarding as they do the rights of the strong. The report's acceptance of subsidies to renew the fleet, export subsidies and duty on and technocratic obstacles to imports provocatively strengthens certain businessmen and makes the international division of labour even more unfair here, at the expense of poor and developing countries. We wish to point out that, in the report, subsidies for withdrawing large vessels from the tuna fleet are described, and rightly so, as counterproductive and catastrophic, which is why it proposes that they be abolished and redirected towards renewing the fleet. However, the same subsidies for withdrawing small and medium-sized coastal and short-haul fishing vessels are put forward by the ΕU as structural funds allegedly to restructure the corresponding sectors. This contradiction again confirms the class policy of the ruling circles of the ΕU at the expense of small and medium-sized fisheries for the benefit of the large capitalist fishing companies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I believe that it is important to mention the background to this proposal for a directive, which seeks to supplement the regulation on the European Company with regard to the involvement of workers. The first proposal for a European Commission regulation dates back to 1970 and was presented to the European Parliament at the end of the 1980s. Some of the core elements of this directive are the binding provisions concerning the participation of employees’ representatives, the information and consultation requirements within the administrative or supervisory bodies and the obligation to obtain authorisation before implementing decisions such as shutting down or relocating establishments, cutting back or expanding establishments, changing establishments, the establishment of subsidiaries or holding companies. Election procedures and the working methods of employees’ representatives should follow normal practice in the Member State concerned. These proposals have failed on the issue of participation. A great deal more negotiating was needed before the Nice European Council reached agreement on 20 December 2000. The proposal for a directive governing information and consultation of workers specifies that the scale of participation will be decided through free negotiations between the companies concerned and the workers represented by a special negotiating body. Should the result of the negotiations lead to a reduction of participation rights, the majority required for a decision to approve such an agreement shall be the votes of two thirds of the members of the special negotiating body representing at least two thirds of the employees. In the event of a breakdown of negotiations, a safety clause is provided to protect participation rights. The purpose of the amendments made by the European Parliament is to establish minimum requirements for information, participation and consultation of employees; to harmonise the national implementing provisions of the Member States, since acquired rights are not called into question; to ensure that even in the case of substantial structural changes after an SE has been created, negotiations on employee participation are planned to take place at a later date; to lay down clear rules on management’s obligation to provide information, specifying areas to which this obligation applies; to ensure that the election or appointment of workers’ representatives to the SE’s administrative or surveillance body shall take place according to the legal provisions of the Member States. I must conclude by saying that I voted in favour of the amendment to change the legal basis of this proposal. In my view, the European Parliament must use the co-decision procedure for a piece of legislation that concerns 75% of European workers.

Political group: PSE
The European Union – and today I finally have the right to say ‘our union’ – has been transformed from an economic union into what we call a union ‘based on values’. The increasing diversity of cultures, languages and religions is undoubtedly one of those basic values. Human rights are universal and they must be extended to everyone without any discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, material status, ethnic origin, mother tongue or citizenship. The rights of national minorities are an inalienable component of fundamental rights. Let us be honest, serious problems in this sphere remain in both the old and the new Member States, including my own country, Latvia. These issues were included in the Copenhagen criteria for accession. Experience will show how successfully these criteria are met, but what will happen next? I believe that we must move on from the rhetoric of human rights to a permanent and practical involvement, we must achieve the adoption of mechanisms for monitoring legally binding statutes and their implementation. A very important step in this direction has already been taken. It has already been mentioned today that the draft Constitution included a Charter of Fundamental Rights and that the draft Constitution makes reference to minority rights. In particular the adoption of a Directive on racial equality must be noted. These, however, are just the first steps. I am looking at the theme of our discussion today, ‘Freedom and security for Union citizens’. Within the area of European freedom and security, freedom, security and equality must be provided for all – even refugees, immigrants and guest workers. We have a big job ahead of us. I believe that we, the elected representatives of Europeans, in cooperation with other European organisations, primarily the Council of Europe, will be able to successfully resolve this extremely important challenge.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control; I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE