GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Ukraine is without doubt a European country – one of the largest – and we must not forget how this European country was for decades oppressed and plundered as a Soviet colony. There is no room for self-righteousness in the criticisms we level at Ukraine today, for we, thank God, have been spared a fate such as theirs – or, at least, most of us have been. There is much, then, that we have to appreciate and understand. For Ukraine to develop will take some time. We in this House have, over recent years, done a great deal to support Ukraine, and even before the great changes between 1989 and 1991 there were elements in Western Europe who cooperated with it. I am thinking here of the Ukrainian university in exile in my electoral district in Munich, or of Radio Liberty, which used to broadcast from Munich, which was perhaps something of a free Ukrainian metropolis. That has always given us a great deal of sympathy and understanding for the Ukrainian people in their aspiration towards a life of their own. We cannot, however, show any consideration towards politicians who are not merely corrupt, who are not merely dragging their heels when it comes to getting their country to make progress, but are even doing the very opposite by trying to freeze to death the tender shoots of democracy and the rule of law, who are actively using criminal methods to counter their opposition, and attempting to silence their critics in the media. To take one example, it is an appalling scandal when a Member of this European Parliament – Mrs Stauner, and she is surely not the only one – is shadowed by an officer of the Ukrainian secret police, because she brought members of the Ukrainian opposition into this House or raised critical issues, such as the trade in organs, the trafficking in children and many other problems that there are, unfortunately, not only in Ukraine but also with Ukraine. Our policy, then, must be an utterly unambiguous one. While we must, in principle, be sympathetic towards the Ukrainian people as an important European partner, we must speak out strongly against, and take firm action against, all those who, in whatever way, seek to whittle away and destroy the democracy that is coming into being in their country.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at the end of the Mobuto regime the then Conférence Nationale in Zaire published a cutting condemnation following a committee of enquiry about ‘les biens mal acquis’ – wealth acquired through crime. A condemnation of the plundering carried out by the Mobuto regime. After bloody wars with more than two million casualties in the NDRC and hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi, the fighting continues. It is therefore extremely important to find out how this has happened, and it has to do with the fact that, despite the peace treaties of Lusaka and Arusha, the wars are being waged by plundering the mineral wealth which should really only benefit the people of Congo. Foreign and domestic plunderers cannot, however, do this without the active cooperation and the culpability of big companies that are respectable over here but guilty over there without our doing anything about it. I therefore call on the international community to assume its responsibility and not to leave it to this committee of enquiry but to actively work out binding codes of behaviour to which multinationals must adhere so that peace may finally come to the Great Lakes region and so that those hundreds of thousands of people really have the right to life. That is because, with all this talk about war that we are obliged to wage, Africa remains forgotten.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Schnellhardt has stated that I am organising a campaign for a moratorium on buying GM products. That is utter nonsense. Consumers are making it clear – and saying so in every survey – that they do not want GM products. So far, industry has been able to slip GM foods past the consumers on the quiet; now, the food manufacturers have to tell them the truth about their products, so if the de-facto moratorium is lifted, we will be in a completely new situation. Labelling has now arrived, so that consumers can make known their feelings – whether for or against – about this type of food. For the GM industry, the litmus test is not to do with whether or not they get authorisation from the EU, nor is it the procedural hurdles; it is whether or not consumers will buy these products. It is the market that is the litmus test; it is the market that will decide. I do not fear the end of this moratorium – far from it. You have to ask yourselves why it is that not one single manufacturer has, so far, put these products on the market labelled as such. Manufacturers will watch as these products do an economic nosedive. If these products have to be labelled, the manufacturers will have to tell the truth about them. It is the consumers themselves who will bring in a moratorium on buying them. The Commission has also accepted responsibility when it comes to lifting the moratorium. Commissioner Wallström, at the time of the directive on release into the environment, you told us that liability would be incorporated in the environmental liability directive, but it was not. (Interruptions) My final point is that, earlier in the debate, I asked the Commissioner to say something about the rules on seeds. My fear is that this House is being tricked. I urge the Commission to make a statement about this, because Parliament’s voice is not being heard on the subject. Will there be a limit value of zero for seeds as is already the practice in a number of states? Is it not technically avoidable? I ask you to speak and account for this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in Barcelona, the European Council decided in 2002 that EU expenditure for research and development needs to be increased to 3% of the Gross Domestic Product. This is a necessary target if we want to close the gap with the US and be the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. Unfortunately, this 3% is currently not being achieved; it is only 1.9%. Industry must account for the lion's share of this 3%, because, according to the Council proposal, one-third should come from the government and two-thirds from industry. This is an agreeable proposal, but the European governments should, however, create the right climate for industry to be able to gain a permanent foothold in Europe and to re-invest, particularly in development and in R[amp]D. This also applies to a great extent to small and medium-size enterprises. In various Member States, initiatives have been developed in order to provide financial support to starter projects from SMEs, especially in the field of technology. In this respect, the fact that technological research, especially high-quality research, takes a very long time to establish is being overlooked. That is why there is always a need for new funding, and this is not always forthcoming in Europe. Starting is not such a problem, but secondary funding is a huge problem. We are experiencing this in the Netherlands too, with the hugely successful 'Biopartner' project. However, an investment climate requires clear and transparent legislation, backed by sufficient and well-trained researchers. Moreover, the mobility of researchers in Europe is still a major problem, because researchers are being hindered by different working conditions in the different Member States. I would therefore call on the Commission and the Member States to put their money where their mouth is and take specific measures to create a favourable business climate for research and development in Europe.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to underline the legitimacy of this report. One of the roles of the European Parliament is to use its legitimacy as a representative voice of the citizens of the Union constantly to promote and defend fundamental rights. Freedom of expression and information necessarily implies pluralism of the media, especially the audio-visual media. We therefore find ourselves faced with a real European problem, since this pluralism of the media, which is absolutely essential both for cultural diversity and for democracy, is still not guaranteed. The Italian example, characterised by almost exclusive control by the same person, in his capacity both as Prime Minister and as a private owner, is unfortunately only the most flagrant and grotesque example of what is in danger of happening to us all if measures are not taken quickly. In this regard, we can only wonder about this Commission and this Council, which do not hesitate to take heavy-handed action, for example in dismantling the public rail service – as we see again today – in the name of the fight against monopolies in the single market and of supposed benefits for users, but which seem paralysed when it comes to preventing private monopolies in television. - Resolution: Pakistan (B5-0187/2004)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I will not tire of appealing to the consciences of my colleagues. We, and other Members, in particular the coordinators of the Foreign Affairs Committee, have established that the matters which we select for consideration in the topical and urgent debate are not always very appropriate. This also applies here, to Iraq. Three months ago, at the April plenary part-session, we adopted a resolution in which we say everything that it is possible for us to say about Iraq. All the issues are covered. I have carefully read the new motions for resolutions which have been tabled, but they do not contain anything new. Nevertheless, this is to be included as a topical and urgent motion because one group, which has travelled to Iraq of its own accord, now has to submit this motion for a resolution. I think that this would be wrong and irresponsible of Parliament, and that is why we are asking for this item to be withdrawn. (Parliament rejected the request) President. – We now have a request to replace the item on Venezuela with a new item entitled “Colombia and the international conference of donor countries in Madrid”.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor, despite the fact that I have not yet written a book and have not read a great many. The protection of intellectual property has always been a cause for concern to the European Union and to the European Parliament, because we know that only this protection guarantees that we have culture, that culture flourishes and that economic production takes place. This could have been an historic moment for the European Parliament. But it is not. For the first time in our lives, the protection of intellectual property is being undermined. With the consent of the European Parliament. As we have found out, the European Parliament still has only one objective: no conciliation. After 18 months of deliberation in the Council, we have been told to get a move on. After 18 months of deliberation in the Council. And then the Council says 'unanimously', although it could have voted by a qualified majority, given the balance we keep hearing about. And then Parliament is asked not to make any more amendments. We might just as well shut up shop and go home. I have never seen Members put under such pressure by their governments and parties. But with the Council and the governments on either side, in the Council and in Parliament, what need is there for Parliament? Parliament has its own responsibility and it must live up to it. The common position has dramatically undermined authors' rights. I am on the authors' side and I call on Parliament to restore these rights – at least to some degree.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Bouwman on the publication of this text, which had been uncertain for a long time. This is indeed a very important date in maritime history. A number of our colleagues have said that this text is a precursor to the Erika package and, in many respects, it aims to solve a problem that is even more serious. This problem concerns acts of ecological piracy, when ships discharge waste at sea, discharging hydrocarbons and a huge amount of waste onto our shorelines. It is also a victory for Parliament over the Council’s reluctance to imposing a common-sense fee-paying system. The principle of polluter pays is not working in the case in point, because the polluter cannot be identified. If we want to settle this issue, we must move towards a universal fee system, which will be mandatory and not linked to the act of waste treatment. I am among those who, in their capacity as French Members of Parliament, have made every effort to ensure that this text is published, even acting against the sympathies of their government towards this text or against its reservations. I am among those who welcome this compromise. But this compromise cannot be allowed to become a let-out. It must be implemented and its implementation must be strictly monitored at the level of the Member States. In this connection, I would like to give you the position of a Frenchman who has worked so hard, despite the reluctance of his government. It is clear that this text currently favours large ports and puts small ports, which are not equipped, at a disadvantage. I therefore call on the Council to help Member States equip small ports, possibly in the framework of the Structural Funds, or in the form of some kind of loan, because small ports are also important elements of national and regional development and of regional and local economies. And I believe that, if we provide small ports with waste treatment plants, we will secure the success of this directive.

Political group: PSE
This report has the merit of revealing the true face of European integration today: 62 million poor and 18 million unemployed. The ongoing restructuring processes and mergers involve new redundancy plans. Although we are seeing strong economic growth and a fall in unemployment, in the modern world work offers no protection against exclusion. The ‘working poor’, most of them women, working part-time, for a pittance and in the most insecure jobs, join the trail of poverty so loftily ignored in the official speeches about economic recovery. Quality jobs, health care, housing and education are indeed basic rights, which, if they were binding upon employers and states, would be able to offer protection against social exclusion. That is why we will vote in favour of the report on combating exclusion. Yet the Members who will be endorsing this text today did not show the same surge of solidarity when they voted for a Charter without social rights which, in reducing measures to combat exclusion to the level of measures of assistance, constitutes a step backward in relation to much of the legislation now in force. A more effective way of combating exclusion would be, for example, to establish a European minimum guaranteed wage.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I was booked on the same flight and I am rather embarrassed to admit that the airline was KLM, our national airline company. I hope that next time, also if any other airline company is involved, things will run more smoothly. (The Minutes were approved) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this 1% GMO content limit which does not require labelling, presented here from a purely technical perspective, seems to be a very high level compared with the commitments already made by large-scale distributors. So why is it 1%? In our opinion, the firms involved in the mass production and use of GMOs are seeking to establish a fait accompli by spreading GMOs across the whole of the food-processing market. They are making it virtually impossible to set up sectors capable of offering consumers GMO-free products. Next, it is impossible to guarantee that GMOs will not, in the long term, have any impact on public health and on the environment, especially given that mass production causes them to be dispersed throughout the countryside. The social impact of the widespread distribution of GMOs has been clearly identified: producers and consumers will become ever more dependent on the giants in the food processing sector. In our opinion, in order to foil the policy of the fait accompli, the maintenance of complete sectors of production without GMOs must be guaranteed. Both producers and consumers must ultimately be able to identify whether the products they are using contain GMOs or not. Means for control exist. They can be effective if the public authorities have the political will to use them. As far as we are concerned, there is no justification today for the existence of a tolerable GMO level within which the risk would be zero or at least acceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to refer to Baroness Ludford’s report. Before we deal with other aspects of immigration policy, a common status is needed for third-country nationals who are long-term residents in strict compliance with the Tampere Agreements, the aim of which was to give these third-country nationals a set of uniform rights comparable with those enjoyed by EU citizens. We need to resolve situations such as those that, in theory, hinder the free movement of third-country nationals within the EU today. For this reason my group hopes that this House will send a strong message, directed mainly at the Council, supporting the European Commission proposal. In this regard, I would personally like to thank Baroness Ludford for her work. We cannot accept some of the amendments that have been adopted in Committee or that have been submitted once again to this House. As Mrs Roure mentioned, we cannot allow subjective issues to obstruct the authority to grant this long-term resident status and, even less so, dangerous propaganda exercises that draw parallels, not between border controls and terrorism, as used to be said, but between long-term residents and terrorists, or, at the very least, terrorism. Once again we are going to defend the right for third-country nationals who are long-term residents to vote in local and European elections. I can only hope that, despite the numerous empty places on the Council benches, this message will leave Parliament and be heard.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is unacceptable that the President-in-Office of the Council is giving such emphatic, cautious, evasive, mean and insipid replies as this one. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, there are silences that speak volumes, which make themselves heard, and the complicity of which is horrifying. This is shameful for an institution such as the Council of Ministers. The European Union keeps meticulous accounts of molluscs and fish, chicks, poultry, cattle or goats; it bureaucratically identifies animals and vegetables of every type of species, which it analyses exhaustively; it analyses the chassis of motors, industrial parts and tools, the remoulding of tyres ... it is unacceptable that it cannot count the victims of a war of hardly three weeks ago. Bearing in mind that we are talking about a war which violated international law and did not enjoy the multilateral support of the United Nations, I would ask you – and please reply, Mr President-in-Office of the Council – do you condemn the violation of the right to life which has been suffered by the victims of this illegal war?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will just come back to Mrs Read's remark and Mr Helmer's statements. Mr Helmer obliges me to make a remark that I actually did not believe I would ever have to make. I speak as one who, in this House during Mrs Fontaine's term of office, was often harshly critical of her. I find myself now constrained to say that when Mr Helmer writes in his newsletter that Mrs Fontaine's statements bordered on Marxism or socialism, I must contradict him in the most emphatic terms. Nicole Fontaine deserves many things, but to associate her with Marxism or socialism is false. It is, Mr Helmer, as if one were to associate you with clever remarks. That would be just as erroneous. I must say that we cannot allow Members or representatives of this House to be smeared in this way, for, alongside the facetious comment, the recommendation that a representative of Parliament should call her book 'Mein Kampf' equates her with historical parallels which make it unacceptable in any way whatever. I find that even in this House we have to be able to censure such a thing. I will just ask the following of the ladies and gentlemen in the PPE- Group. This House envisages that politicians of the same political orientation join together in a group – how can the 's people actually sit together with such a man in the same group? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we should in fact have addressed the Argentina crisis last January, when it was at its crucial point, but the changeover of duties prevented this. The Argentine situation has improved since December, but we are still faced with tremendous difficulties. A few days ago some incidents took place, in which two people were killed and dozens wounded. Yesterday, the President of the Argentine Republic, Mr Duhalde, announced that the elections would be brought forward to May instead of October. In any event, when we address the problem of Argentina in these institutions, we should refrain from lecturing. Naturally, I do not think either Parliament or the institutions of the European Union as a whole are in a position to lecture. In particular, it is difficult to do so in the case of a country like Argentina, which has been the prize pupil of the International Monetary Fund and which we have often praised for following this type of policy. The pupil, however, was not as good as it appeared: there has been an excessive accumulation of public debt, uncontrolled public spending and now, as a result, the financial system has colla d. I think it is difficult to recommend doctrinaire solutions. On the one hand, I do not think that going back to old recipes of replacing imports, or old recipes of dependency theories, solves anything. They might satisfy us intellectually, but they do not solve anything. Of course, it is equally untrue that the solutions devised at Davos, the solutions of the gospel of neoliberalism, have led the country towards a solution. I think we need to look for a far more pragmatic solution. There are countries in Latin America which, albeit with difficulty, are overcoming these problems. The best example of this is Chile, but Brazil, under Fernando Enrique Cardoso, also seems to be coping under difficult circumstances. The most important thing is for the European institutions to instigate aid to Argentina, which is a democratic country, with freedom of the press, a high level of culture and excellent economic, commercial, political etc. relations with our Union. We should consider similar aid to that given to Turkey. In Turkey’s case it is possible that this aid may have influenced its role as a strategic country in the Middle East. Argentina may not be in a strategic area, but if we do not help Argentina, there is a danger that the rest of Latin America might follow in its footsteps. From my point of view and that of the Group of the , therefore, the important thing now is not to provide solutions or recommendations, but to ensure that the European institutions and our Governments take action to support this economy and this country which, given the close relationship it has with us, deserves our backing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am very pleased to inform the House that a particularly important personage, not just for Italy but for Europe as a whole, is in the public gallery: the national chairman of the Italian association of persons incapacitated or injured as a result of accidents at work, who are calling upon Europe to provide security, preventive measures and rehabilitation and to ensure that structural obstacles are removed. This morning, we had a meeting with Mr Medina Ortega and other Members, Vice-President Podestà and President Cox. I hope that their presence will lead us all to reflect seriously on the matter. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE