GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I should just like to say that last year in this House we democratically rejected a motion to cancel Friday sittings by a large majority. We decided in favour of maintaining sittings on a Friday and said that on that day we would put items on the agenda which were uncontroversial, matters which had nonetheless to be dealt with and yet could also be properly settled with a rather smaller number of people. Last Friday, a minority of people abused a provision in the Rules of Procedure in order, as it were, to undermine the Friday sitting and to prevent the votes from taking place. In my view, this is an abuse of a rule which, in itself, is perfectly reasonable because, after all, a majority of this House made a decision on Friday sittings last year. The matters which were not put to the vote that Friday – including the important issue of Ethiopia – were voted on in Brussels and the results were almost unanimous. We could have voted on them almost unanimously on the Friday too, and I should like to ask colleagues to stop this sabotage, to let us get on with our work and to discuss the issue of how we organise our work separately and calmly. But let those who want to work here on a Friday do so in peace and quiet. At the end of the day, the votes had to be repeated because those who had asked for there to be a check on the quorum were themselves no longer present and did not take part in the vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Commission today includes members from 25 countries and, although the role of each Commissioner is to serve the common European interest, there still exists an important element of national representation. This representation should only complement the Union and not divide it because this means that the Commission, in its entirety, is conscious of the social and economic situation of each country, and, where necessary, can act flexibly. Certainly it is not in the European spirit to take action without considering the consequences on certain social sectors. I believe that the Commissioners recognise the importance of flexibility when some actions can have repercussions on families that live a somewhat different life according to the economical and social limitations of the region. I come from a small State that is also an island in the Mediterranean and this is, therefore, the standpoint from which I speak. We also know, however, that flexibility is not only necessary in the case of small countries. Even large States have found themselves needing a certain flexibility to abide by the union’s common objectives. To conclude I would like to state that the diversity that exists within the European Union is positive, however, it is this same diversity that requires flexibility. I believe that the Commissioners are all aware of this, and, for the common good of Europe, they will be acting in a flexible manner in order to assure European citizens that the Commission is not a threat to them, but is actually there to protect them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if the Council does not agree with the Commission, does that mean the Commission will have to take the Council to the European Court in order to participate in the military committee? Secondly, has the Commission drawn any conclusions as to the security implications of its participation in the military committee?

Political group: PSE
I am of course in favour of direct universal elections to our Parliament and I congratulate the rapporteur on the hard work he has put in to increase the authority and credibility of our Assembly. There is, however, one fatal flaw in this Parliament's approach to the whole question of universal suffrage. The problem is that the five European Parliament elections that have so far taken place since 1979 have not included one particular part of the European Union. I have in mind the 15,000 voters of Gibraltar. Member States' exclusion of this small territory from the right to vote reflects no credit on them. And I have in mind successive British governments as well as others. This report leaves open the question of the Gibraltarian vote. Although some progress has been made on this matter since the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 1999, the matter is still unresolved. No Council decision on European Parliament voting can be complete without recognition of the Gibraltarians' rights. That is why I shall be voting against this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the traceability of foods from the field to the supermarket shelf is a must. At the same time, there must be a voluntary quality assurance procedure for producers, which offers our millions of consumers high safety standards. Unfortunately, the procedure used in the Member States is too disparate and too unclear. Without strict controls there will be no way of preventing all forms of abusive labelling. Consumers want natural foods and are against the use of any technology in the production of food. Labelling and traceability do not automatically guarantee safety. The greatest danger lies in the procedure for licensing genetically modified organisms in the food chain in the Community, if this contradicts the general product standards laid down in WTO rules. The Commission's plans for reforming the CAP are proliferating daily. The planned amendments are a challenge to the Member States' right of codetermination and to their interest groups. And farming is being turned into a sort of employment agency, with administration and control systems gaining in importance over good, professional practice. The new size reductions required are yet another political blunder and are therefore unacceptable. This report looks a long way into the future and so should a reform.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, I think it only fair to thank you for such an exhaustive answer, which to a certain extent reassures me. To the same extent as you are reassured, I think, because there is no doubt that the problems of these numerous refugees in Tanzania are severe. We had the World Food Programme report, which said that food reserves would run out by the end of the year. There is also the need to provide for the training and education of all these refugees, even though they are in an anomalous situation in their lives, precisely so that these years should not be wasted years. Therefore, not only is it essential to give humanitarian food aid, but education programmes and health programmes are also needed so that these tragic years for this people will not be wasted years but can be the starting point for better times and especially for the permanent reconciliation of the Burundian people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I come back to my question to you, which I quite obviously raised at entirely the wrong moment. I asked you earlier, and I should like to repeat this now, whether you are prepared, in view of the burgeoning debate about the process regarding the application for the removal of the immunity of Mr Berlusconi and Mr Dell'Utri, to answer three brief questions which I would like to put to you. Madam President, I repeat, you are, of course, under no obligation to answer these questions, but I believe – as you will see from the questions themselves – that, together with your possible answers, they may well dismantle the obvious lack of clarity surrounding this matter. So my request, as I said, is this: may I put these questions to you, and will you answer them?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Constitution of my country solemnly states, in Article 14, that all ‘Spaniards are equal before the law, without any discrimination for reasons of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion, or any other political or social condition or circumstance’; and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in Article 20, Chapter III, states that ‘Everyone is equal before the law’; and in Article 21 that ‘Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex,.....shall be prohibited’, and other circumstances are stipulated; and Article 23, under the heading ‘Equality between men and women’ lays down that ‘Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.’ If we compare these general principles, these solemn declarations, with social reality, with the everyday world we live in, specifically in terms of the achievement of women’s equality in the field of representation amongst the European Union’s social partners, one conclusion immediately springs to mind: there is still much to do. Mrs Smet’s excellent report expresses this perfectly, and I congratulate her on her work. Women make up approximately 40% of the members of the trade unions in the European Union, but there is no proportionality between their presence within the membership of the trade unions, on the one hand, and within the decision-making and governing bodies of the trade unions, on the other. Furthermore, women, although the data on this is rather imprecise, make up a minority in the upper levels of company organisations. Declarations of intention without commitments are not sufficient to turn the principles I have mentioned into a social reality. We therefore need strategies aimed at increasing the presence of women amongst the social partners and I believe that an artificial system of quotas is not the right or desired solution or approach. A fairer society – in a European Union in which 42% of working people are women – cannot tolerate an under-representation of women in the bodies and structures within which social interlocutors meet to define, regulate and agree on issues relating to social policy. Perhaps women themselves are partly responsible for the situation being analysed here. I believe that the horizontal integration of the gender dimension into the different policies, the action programmes – preferably measures to reconcile work and family life – the efforts of the social agents themselves, training and information, measures to stimulate the participation of women, positive actions and action programmes, are ways to achieve equality and this, in turn, is a means, an instrument, for building a better, fairer and more caring society through social dialogue.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to welcome this report, which is an informative instrument on more than one level: it is an excellent compilation of the existing legislation, it monitors accurately the development of the legislation and, in particular, the effects of 11 September, and it provides clear proof that the perception of danger has changed the terms of the balance between freedom and security, that the increase in the number of exceptional laws has substantially limited our fundamental rights and held them up to ridicule. With the adoption of European provisions such as the framework decisions on terrorism and the European arrest warrant, or even the freezing of assets of certain entities and individuals considered to be terrorists, the European Union is consolidating the many anti-terrorism and repressive laws adopted by the Member States. However, if the need to combat terrorism must not be an excuse to adopt discriminatory and arbitrary laws, the absence of a clear and precise definition of terrorism in European legislation today allows the implicit criminalisation of social movements linked to freedom of expression and freedom of association. A simple suspicion can result in detention. Entire populations that were already vulnerable have been even more so since 11 September: nationals of third countries, asylum-seekers, Roma and Muslims. With disregard for fundamental rights and public freedoms, these populations are often treated as if they pose a threat or a danger to state security and it is easy to blame it on 11 September. It allows us to ignore the real issues society must face: integration, xenophobia and immigration and asylum policy. Today, the fight against terrorism serves as a pretext for the fight against immigration, which is no longer considered to be anything but illegal. The association agreements with Algeria, for example, are a good illustration of this amalgam of terrorism and immigration. The same applies to the agreements on the readmission of sans-papiers sent to third countries. The list of violations carried out within the European Union by the states and institutions is a long one: xenophobia, double punishment, arbitrary detention, discriminatory practices as regards hiring and housing, and offences based on identity. Yet human rights have no borders, so we must be frank and begin by putting our own house in order. We must stop using human rights as a currency with third countries; the aim of the European Union is to promote peace, the values of freedom, justice and solidarity and the welfare of its people. We must now make all efforts to ensure that human rights are at last respected in the European Union for all residents, regardless of their nationality. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, High Representative, today’s debate seems to me to be a proper debate. I appreciate the Presidency’s flexibility as regards time: if the President wants to make this a genuine political debating chamber once again, it may be no bad thing that he is showing some flexibility towards us. I would like to say that we are caught up in an appalling, absurd situation: when the Israelis elected Ariel Sharon to power they thought he would bring them more security, but they are now in a terrible situation. When President Bush was giving his assessment of the tragic situation after the attacks on the Twin Towers, he gave the impression of intending to eradicate the sources of hatred and to genuinely do something about this tragic affair. However, if the United States now backs Ariel Sharon, there is a danger that it will no longer be able to play the mediating role it had even under Bill Clinton. At present, it would appear that Yasser Arafat is not in control of the situation, for the terrorism of Hamas is still gathering momentum, but if Mr Arafat were to lose all support, the consequences for Palestine would not bear thinking about. Therefore, it is up to us, to Europe to do something. I do not want to shock anybody, but I believe that the only way to give Israel security – as many Members have said – is to establish a Palestinian State. Therefore, we must start to declare right now that we are prepared to recognise such a State and also that we need to have a special relationship with both the Israeli State and the Palestinian State. I will not go so far as to mention accession to the Union, as Mr Dupuis did, for fear of causing offence, but if Europe wants to genuinely lay the history of the twentieth century to rest, it cannot confine itself to enlargement and refuse to assume full responsibility for the consequences of European history. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was present at the committee’s meeting this morning, and I would therefore like to add to what the Chairman, Mr Watson, has said. There was substantial concern regarding precisely the request for urgency – there were even three votes cast against the motion and three abstentions – because we are being asked to approve an urgent procedure not on the mechanism for identifying money launderers but on a list. It is with regard to this fact that we expressed our opposition. (Parliament adopted the request for urgent procedure) ***

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, tomorrow is 4 July, Independence Day. We join our American friends in a celebration of America's achievements. In two world wars the Americans came to liberate us from darkness and violence, and when the Balkans erupted the Americans stepped in when Europe failed. The Americans are there when you need them, ready to fight and die for a world of freedom and democracy. However, freedom and democracy do not stop after the obtaining of peace. In order to maintain peace and prevent wars perpetrators of crimes must always be brought to justice. That is why we in Europe find it utterly incomprehensible that Americans are now cheering on their legislators as they are killing off an essential tool that was missing in our quest to make the world a safer and more just place – the International Criminal Court. The Court has a mandate to prosecute only the most horrible crimes – genocide, mass murder and mass rape. In the past we have had to set up ad hoc tribunals for the Milosevics of this world. Now 74 countries have ratified a court which Kofi Annan rightly calls 'a great victory for justice, and for world order – a turn away from the rule of brute force, and towards the Rule of Law.' America and Europe have built-in safeguards to ensure the Court will not become a political tool. Any government can prevent the Court from taking action against its citizens by prosecuting them at home. Despite all this, the US has withdrawn its signature. If that were not a large enough blow to international justice, Congress then accepted the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, which not only threatens to withhold military and financial support to any country that cooperates with the Court, but also allows the US to invade a long-time friend and ally – my country to be precise. The Dutch people cannot understand how our American friends can now threaten us with violence, and for what? Is it really more important to allow American soldiers to commit war crimes than to build a safer world? Is it necessary to jeopardise international peacekeeping missions just to make the point that superpowers do not have to play by the rules? Perhaps this is an opportunity for Europe. Europe has a chance to show the world that it is indeed a union of values; that we believe in a world in which we are all equal before the law, a world in which perpetrators of crimes will be brought to justice, no matter who they are and where they are hiding: a world ruled by law, not by the sword of the mightiest. I cannot believe that Americans do not also want this type of world and I hope deeply that they will reconsider their position. However, until they do, Europe must take the lead. We must show the world that we will stick to our principles and fight for justice. If a majority of the House sends that signal to the world tomorrow by supporting our compromise resolution then we are also celebrating Independence Day, the day that Europe stood up for its values.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am not going to use this speech to give praise. Although if I wanted to, it would be difficult for me to better the adjectives that have been used in the last six months by, for example, the Secretary-General of the Council, Mr Solana, the British Prime Minister, or the current German Chancellor, who are all of the same political leaning as Mr Barón, although that may not appear to be the case. It is, however, reasonable to say that in the past six months we have made more progress than ever in the field of justice and home affairs. And something that I think is more important, perhaps, than having agreed a common definition of the crime of terrorism, having created Eurojust, or having adopted the arrest warrant, is having understood that terrorism is a problem and a threat for all Europeans and that it therefore requires measures at Community level. Those who murder, or use extortion and threats as a means of achieving their political objectives are undoubtedly a threat to democracy and to the system of freedoms. But the same applies to those who instigate or cooperate with terrorists. Those who contribute funding, for example, which the Batasuna treasurer is accused of, after the French judicial authorities found more than EUR 200 000 in his car boot which he said he was given by a Member of this House. I am therefore very relieved, and I think we all should be, to know that the Bureau of the European Parliament has intervened in this matter. On the subject of attacks on human rights, there are few actions that are more repulsive than the trafficking of human beings. The fight against illegal immigration also requires an effort at European level. Of course my Group wanted to get further, like the majority of the members of the Council, but I think that we should be satisfied with the agreement that was reached, which was a result of the requirement for unanimity and which is undoubtedly a step forward, especially for those who not long ago were demagogically demanding papers for all. I want to end by repeating some words that were said in this plenary in January 1996, during the previous Spanish Presidency of the European Union. The spokesperson for my Group, Abel Matutes, said then that the Presidency does not belong to the Government that is temporarily exerting the power, but is the responsibility of the whole country and all of its people. The Partido Popular, as Mr Matutes said then, has therefore given you its loyal support in order to achieve the objectives set out. We have fulfilled that objective and therefore, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to say that we take the good and bad elements of this Presidency as our own. There are people this morning who have missed the opportunity to show the slightest institutional loyalty. They will always have the freedom to continue bringing strictly national discussions to Brussels and Strasbourg. They therefore also have the opportunity first of all to lose the debates in their country of origin and then lose them again here, in Brussels or Strasbourg.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the fact that the Italian Presidency is interested in the concept of the European coastguard and recognises the fragility of our maritime borders rather than – and it has happened in the past – an exclusive preoccupation with land frontiers. While I am aware of the Commission proposal, would the presidency not accept that the issue of illegal trafficking in human beings is not the only problem on our seas? Criminals have used our seas in many ways to ply their evil trades, which include illegal trafficking in drugs and cigarette smuggling. Also to be borne in mind are the problems caused by shipping disasters. We have also had major problems with regard to marine pollution, the Erika package and, more recently, the Prestige disaster. Would the presidency also accept that, given the low stocks which exist in our seas vis-à-vis fishing, there are a lot of things that a European coastguard could do along the lines of the US Coastguard? Is it not time for a proposal on a multi-faceted approach, which does not deal solely with the issue of illegal trafficking in human beings, but covers all these aspects? If we address the concerns of European citizens, we are always concerned about how to make Europe more relevant. If we came forward with a definitive proposal to tackle these problems, we could make Europe very relevant by addressing the real fears of the citizens across a whole host of areas.

Political group: PPE-DE