GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I believe that we are currently playing a game of cat and mouse in this Chamber which is atrocious, utterly atrocious for democracy! (Applause) Everyone knows that as soon as ... Listen, and speak afterwards. I know that it is sometimes difficult to listen, when you believe you are the strongest, but the strongest has not always proved to be the most intelligent. Intelligence does not come automatically purely by virtue of size. (Applause) No, and you too, Mr Schulz, please calm down, ... I can say it in German for you, if you like. If you have a problem ... (Heckling) Shut up! (Loud protests) Let me say this in German, so Mr Schulz can understand: it is quite clear that from the point when a motion for a resolution is modified, it is no longer the same motion, and it then has to fall in line behind the other motions. It has always been that way in this House, and although the two ‘big boys’ in this House have got together, that does not mean that this House can change its rules and regulations because those big boys hit it off so well! Democracy is rooted in rules; it is not based on the power of the big players. That is why we are voting against this proposal, and we believe that we should proceed as the President has suggested: our joint motion for a resolution should be voted on first, and we will then see who has the majority in this House.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, I feel it would be appropriate to start by recalling that the main reason for the existence of this agreement was Greenland’s leaving the European Union. I also think it is important to recall the reasons why Greenland chose to leave. It left the Union because we wanted forcefully to remove this small and extremely remote community’s inalienable right to fish within the two hundred miles of its exclusive economic zone, which are today clearly protected under International Maritime law. This is perhaps the greatest mistake the European Union has made to date; it has already caused us serious problems in the past and still poses a threat for the future. In small areas criss-crossed by national borders, such as the North Sea, having the European institutions jointly organise fishing for highly migratory surface fish species has been the right approach. Moving from specific cases and solutions to common ownership of fishing resources under a supposed Community law is, however, no longer acceptable. The same set of articles in International Maritime Law that defines the ownership of marine biological resources also defines the ownership of mineral resources, specifically fossil fuels. The same European Community that sanctioned the application of these articles to delimit the ownership of underwater fossil fuel mines in the North Sea by various Member States claims that they do not apply to biological resources. In other words, we would have a law that can only be used for protecting the interests of the States at the centre of Europe, where gas and oil is found, but which does not apply to protecting the interests of Europe’s peripheral States or outermost regions, which contain enormous maritime areas with substantial resources. In the ten-year period that we feel must now be started in order to ensure that the European institutions discuss the status of the ‘Western waters’, a thorough review must be conducted of the issue of access to waters, European legislation must be adapted to the broad principles of International Maritime Law and the best ways of safeguarding sustainable fisheries in the Atlantic must be studied.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last week the Commission ruled against the level of assistance being given by the Charleroi airport authorities to a certain airline. Not only do I sympathise with the public authorities responsible for Charleroi, I admire them for trying to take action to stimulate much-needed economic growth and jobs, in the light of declining traditional industries. The benefits of low-cost air travel have been felt over a much wider area than just around Charleroi. For example, the route from Glasgow-Prestwick to Charleroi is the only air link from the west of Scotland, a very populous area, to the capital of Europe area. While I recognise that the Commission sees fit to implement state aid regulations in certain ways, what about the consumers? I hope that the Commission will not be over-enthusiastic and end up disadvantaging consumers, including many groups who wish – and need – to visit our headquarters and the other European institutions to learn more about how Europe actually works.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this debate on Strasbourg is not scheduled. Can we move on to the explanation of votes please? EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Report Menrad (A5-0150/2003)

Political group: Verts-ALE
We have just heard that Mr Mokhtar Yahiaoui, one of Tunisia’s most well-known civil liberties campaigners, was abducted this morning in Tunis. He had already been assaulted on 11 December when he was violently attacked whilst on his way to visit his lawyer. I shall therefore call on the President to contact the Tunisian Government to find out why Mr Yahiaoui has been abducted, whom he was abducted by and, if it was by the Tunisian Government, to ascertain the reasons for this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I congratulate Mrs Lynne on the report she has presented, which addresses an issue that I believe to be extremely important: protecting the rights of people with disabilities. I must express my complete support for the proposal to adopt a legally binding convention that would protect the rights of the disabled and that would ensure that these rights are respected at world level. Adopting a convention of this type will make a further contribution to the war on the exclusion and discrimination of the disabled. I therefore believe we should all show solidarity and support this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur. I very much welcome this report and I am pleased that the committee has taken the initiative to prepare before the mid-term review, so that amendments can be made at that stage. As we all know, when operated effectively Structural Funds play a key role in helping the regions and the people in most need, reviving deprived communities and helping to combat social exclusion. It stands to reason that women and gender equality are central elements of this. My constituency in Wales includes some of Europe's poorest communities. Wales is a beneficiary of Objective I funding and has probably had a very similar experience to other areas of Europe. Good work has been done. The European Equality Partnership in Wales has developed systems to try to integrate mainstreaming and fully consider gender and other equality issues in the programming. But people working on the ground still report frustrations. There is a lack of understanding by those running programmes of the economic importance of equal opportunities and the positive effects for the whole community. Good practice is sometimes undermined by the pressure to comply with spending deadlines. Technical assistance is lacking for people trying to implement equality measures. For us in Wales, in particular, there is a worrying under-spend in the gender-specific measures. That is something we need to investigate. All this shows the importance of monitoring systems which will enable us to compare what is really on the ground in different countries. We now have the mid-term review, which is an opportunity to deal with the issues raised in Mrs Avilés Perea's report, a chance to move the equality agenda forward. For that to happen, the training and support mechanisms need to be in place to ensure implementation as well as efficient monitoring and sanctions for non-compliance. Involving women and equality organisations in the evaluation is extremely important. Much depends on their commitment, hard work and vigilance, which the Member States would do well to try to match.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I addressed you regarding an unacceptable leak of questions put by Members from my Group. Now I know who was responsible for the leaks. Mr Galeote has just told us.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Tibet is an issue which is on our agenda year after year after year, and to that extent I understand the point that the honourable Member has made. We have adopted resolutions on this subject time and time again. It is a country that is illegally occupied by China and its people are oppressed by that regime. It is an urgent issue because in recent months we have seen various measures being taken by the Chinese government to move people into the area of Tibet and to exploit the natural resources there. These measures were initially supported by the World Bank, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. Now that the pressure has been put on, Germany and the United States have withdrawn their support. The World Bank is withdrawing support but it has not yet said so publicly. It is urgent that we put pressure on them to withdraw support for these measures so that this Parliament can stand up for the people of Tibet, stand up for democracy, stand up for the stopping of what is an illegal act in international law. (Parliament rejected the request) President. – Still on the subject of topical and urgent debate, regarding the “Human rights” section, I have received three requests to replace the sub-item on “Hooliganism”: a request from the Group of the to replace this item with a new sub-item entitled “Outbreaks of racism in Germany and the killing of Alberto Adriano”, a request from the Group of the to replace this sub-item by one entitled “Incidents at the Rotterdam football stadium”, and a request from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party to replace this sub-item by one entitled “Desecration of Prague’s oldest Jewish cemetery”. We shall examine each of these requests in turn.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I remind Parliament that our group has two components, the Green component and the component, of countries with no State. I have been noticing, yesterday and today, that, on the screens and elsewhere in general, the real name of our group, , does not appear. I therefore ask the President to provide all the relevant information, in order that the true name of our group be re-established.

Political group: Verts-ALE
If this report contained nothing other than statements of good intentions, asserting the need for new technologies to be widely used, particularly in the education system, we could have voted in favour, although good intentions still do not guarantee a policy. However, the intention behind these statements “to provide companies with the financial and technical help required” came through in several paragraphs. Since we do not wish to support grants to private businesses, even those that are not made openly, we abstained from voting on this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Minister, it is a great pleasure to see you here again. The new economy and globalisation are producing an acceleration of industrial change and Parliament has several times discussed this issue and has established –I myself was the rapporteur – a certain number of procedures and the European works councils, and has done work on information to and consultation of workers. We are awaiting the results of these, Commissioner, because you know we are very committed to them. We have also established procedures like the participation of employees in the capital, profits and results of the company, all indispensable procedures during industrial restructuring and change. Of course there is still a great deal to be done in this field, but it seems to me that if we need to improve this type of procedure, as my colleagues have said, and it is not uptight to say so – we now have bodies in Europe like the Foundation in Dublin and the European Agency for Health and Safety in Bilbao, with which our Committee on Employment and Social Affairs cooperates, that are in a position to evaluate the consequences of these industrial changes effectively. And we should not forget that both sides of industry also have an indispensable role to play as regards industrial change at the European and the social level. More particularly, I hope the existing bodies will be required to contribute to making industrial change increasingly transparent and, Commissioner, I hope the texts we are waiting for, on information to and consultation of workers, and the European company, will one day be submitted to this Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have to disagree with my colleague, Mr Poos. It is not for the Commission to tell political groups what decisions they should make on the amendments that have come from the different political groups and therefore the Commissioner should not be placed in this invidious position.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, visitors, as a Member for the Basque Country I would like to believe that raising our voices and asking for intervention and aid for Timor will be one more step towards ending, not only the killing by people protected by the Indonesian military, but, above all, the hypocrisy which dominates international politics. Enough of bad dictatorships and good dictatorships, of the theory of “he’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch” – if you will excuse me, Mr President. Enough of doctrines of the lesser evil, which imply that we can accept the rights of a few being trampled on in order to preserve the security of certain areas which are of interest to the powerful nations for geo-strategic reasons. Enough of the speed of intervention being determined by the level of underground oil reserves. But let us look inwards as well. Let us look at ourselves. Within the Union, we are witnessing the last two conflicts: Ireland and the Basque Country, which are in deadlock because of political and electoral party interests. Peace, human rights and prosperity, inside and outside the European Union, cannot wait for days, weeks and years while we come to agreements amongst ourselves. If only we could understand this once and for all. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I am sorry that the Socialists’ voting list was not received by the services in time. I should like to state unequivocally that I personally, as rapporteur, have no problem in accepting this split vote, even during today’s vote, and it would be good if we could vote today because, as you know, the Council of Agricultural Ministers is meeting today and tomorrow and it would be good if the agricultural ministers knew what we had decided here. Unfortunately, if we vote tomorrow, it will be too late.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like, with reference to this report, to underline the problem of translation: reference should be made to the French or Italian version, since the text adopted by this Parliament will also be the authoritative one for the Commission. We have encountered several problems in some of the other languages, but have not been able to check all of these, and I would thus urge you to be mindful of problems of this type.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Having praised Mr Rocard for his excellent report, I would like to take this opportunity to mention the importance of that annual European scheme which puts a European city in the spotlight in the name of culture. It remains necessary for Europe certainly and, above all, the nominated city, to provide themselves with the human and financial resources for the scheme. Lille in 2004 gives us a perfect and remarkable illustration of this being done.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish first of all to congratulate Terence Wynn and Elmar Brok on their initiative of tabling this motion for a resolution, which is unquestionably of the utmost importance and extremely timely. I have already expressed my agreement with this line of action in the exchange of opinions held on the matter in the Conference of Committee Presidents. I now express this agreement once again – with the particular gratitude and commitment of myself and my group – with the clear and rigorous way in which the motion tabled has addressed this matter. Indeed, we cannot easily accept the way in which the Council position clearly relegates the powers of the European Parliament to second place and clearly limits these powers, in patent breach of the Treaties and of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary matters. Nor can we remain indifferent to the fact that the principle of the equality of Member States and the rule of budgetary unity are being trampled on. Even less can we accept that sums that should not even be considered as the minimum necessary for implementing enlargement should be set as maximum allocations. I shall not dwell on this issue of the sums earmarked for enlargement, since our position on the matter is already common knowledge, but it is nevertheless worth underlining that, if anything can be emphasised with regard to the position adopted in the motion for a resolution on increasing appropriations for category III of the financial perspective, it is the terms laid down and the obvious clear-headedness of the approach to the matter. I do not think that the European Parliament can go further than it does in the motion for a resolution. This is obviously not the time to call enlargement and the timetables planned for its implementation into question. It is crucial, however, at least at this final stage of the process, to ensure a minimum of objectivity, transparency, and respect for the candidate countries and that an end is put to the tight-fisted policy of providing limited means, which has dogged the enlargement process from the very beginning. It is also crucial, in our opinion, and for this very reason, that a rigorous and firm position of the European Parliament does not collapse at the first sign of rejection or of limited agreement by the Council, which, incidentally, must fully assume its responsibilities for the potential consequences of its unacceptable attitude, which is in clear breach of norms and practices that have been agreed and signed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wanted to explain just why I voted for this report as amended. Firstly, I believe it adopts a balanced position and takes account of the well-being and health of the citizens who are, indeed, being more and more exposed to noise pollution. With regard to the substance, I agree with the Commission's idea of harmonising the noise indicators and the methods of evaluating ambient noise. Next, thanks to these common indicators and evaluation methods, it will indeed be possible to compile information on noise exposure, in the form of 'noise maps' without, at least for the moment, fixing noise limit values for the entire European Union. Moreover, I wanted to continue excluding military airports from the scope of the framework directive. I am glad no amendment calling for their inclusion was tabled at second reading. I am also satisfied with the deadline for incorporating the directive into national law (30 June 2003) and for proposing the daughter directives that will ensue (namely three years after the entry into force of the framework directive). However, let me emphasise that the subsidiarity principle must be respected fully and that Member States must have some margin for manoeuvre, based on common indicators and methods, so that they can take account of special factors (different geographical situations, for example) especially in relation to airports. - Joint resolution on the accident in Toulouse

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group will be supporting a number of the compromise amendments that have been put forward. This must have been very difficult for the rapporteur in face of Members of this Parliament who want to drag their heels for the benefit of the packaging industry. However, looking at the current packaging directive and at compliance with it, and just looking at my own country Ireland and a number of others, for example Portugal and Greece – they are all now looking for derogations for extra time. In my opinion, they are being rewarded for being tardy and environmentally irresponsible. This is sending out a very dangerous message to the applicant countries. If the existing Member States cannot comply with the existing legislation and cannot meet their targets then it is going to be very difficult to argue and to push for the new countries coming in to do the same, since they come from an economically less well-off background. Some of the proposals that have been put forward in the legislation were alarming. The idea of a maximum target for recycling is crazy. If Member States can recycle 100% then surely they should be allowed to do so and to set a ceiling here is irresponsible. The issue of recovery is a major problem. Recovery is stretching definitions to the extreme. Recovery is basically a nice term for incineration; it is burning and then producing heat. The idea of a minimum target for recovery will to a certain extent force Member States who do not have incineration to bring it in or to use that as an excuse. Perhaps the wording is not as bad as it was originally. This is a major problem for countries like Ireland that have not done anything about their waste problem. They will say, we are going to recover, and that sounds very nice. At this stage we have to do what has been proposed by some other speakers. We have to eliminate, reduce and recycle, and then finally disposal should be the last option. Burning waste and calling it recovery is stretching the imagination to the extreme.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Izquierdo Collado, for a report prepared so well and thoroughly. The rapporteur has introduced notable improvements to the Commission proposal. The major objectives are the relief of congestion, the creation of hubs, improved safety and the promotion of sustainable transport. These are targeted primarily at the Union’s central regions. I would like to remind everyone of the transport needs in outlying and remote districts and regions, and geographically problematic areas. Good and viable transport links are vital for these areas, which have thin traffic flows. These needs are virtually ignored in the Commission White Paper. Account has to be taken of the special needs of sparsely populated island and mountain areas in any development of a common transport policy. Good transport links will ensure that the whole of the area of the Union remains within the scope of a functional single market and that all Union resources are spent. I would like to mention one final detail. A harsh winter has exposed a new type of safety risk in sea transportation. Consignments of oil in the Baltic Sea from Russia’s new oil port have increased in number. At the same time the risk of oil disasters in exceptionally icy conditions in winter has grown. The EU, like the International Maritime Organisation, has no agreement regarding how fit a ship carrying oil is to travel through ice. This breach in safety arrangements should be swiftly put right.

Political group: ELDR