GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The Italian delegation and the other Members, particularly the French Members, abstained from the final vote on the Schmid report. I too abstained from the vote, and I would like to explain why. I have good reason to believe my views are shared by the other Members. I find it absolutely incomprehensible, not to say outrageous, that the European Parliament, particularly the Group of the , to which I belong, should have rejected certain amendments – the ones I referred to when I spoke during the debate: Nos 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 – which seek explicitly to emphasise that large-scale, indiscriminate interceptions such as those performed by Echelon are a blatant violation of the human rights recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights and other international conventions. In rejecting these amendments, with the support of the majority of s, Parliament has implicitly made it possible – although it may not be completely aware of this – for the private communications of European citizens henceforth to be listened in to by Echelon and similar systems 24 hours a day, with no respect for the principles of legality and proportionality upheld by the European Convention on Human Rights and our Charter of Fundamental Rights. I call upon the Council and the Commission, who are more aware of the need to respect the principles enshrined in the Treaties, to correct this dangerous drift. (The sitting was suspended at 1.43 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MRS LALUMIÈREVice-President(1)

Political group: PSE
The Commission proposes funding embryonic stem cell research despite the opposition of certain Member States which prohibit this and in contempt, too, of the principle of subsidiarity. Embryonic stem cell research, which automatically entails the destruction of the embryo, is completely contrary to the principle of human dignity recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 2). This research also presents technical problems. We are not yet at the stage of research for therapeutic purposes. Even if we are concerned here with fundamental research, nothing justifies using new embryos : that is Mr Liese’s compromise. Very few of us have talked about the suffering of those who are ill and of the need to find treatments as a matter of urgency. Now, that is in fact the question posed by stem cell research. In the present state of research, only the use of adult stem cells offers hope. It presents no ethical and technical problems, but does not unfortunately have enough financial resources at its disposal. That is why the bulk of European funds should be used to finance this type of research which, alone, will be able to meet the urgent requirements of those who are ill. For all these reasons, I shall support the Gargani amendments, which I have co-signed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the extension of the specific programmes of support for agriculture in the outermost regions is a measure of basic need. Distant as they are from the major markets, their normally small-scale agriculture is a mainstay of their economies and would be unable to survive without support in an increasingly globalised market. The Commission proposal, however, errs on the side of meagreness, confining itself most of the time to prolonging the status quo, without addressing new market trends and the increasing difficulty for these regions to compete on international markets ever since the World Trade Organisation agreement was signed in 1999. Despite this situation and the insufficiency of the Commission proposal, I should like to lay great emphasis on the role played by the rapporteur, Mr Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, who managed to work with all those involved in an atmosphere in which good dialogue could lead to compromise solutions, with a result that clearly improves on the Commission proposal. In this context I should like to highlight some of the changes taken up by the rapporteur and approved by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development concerning the regions that I know best, the Azores and Madeira. For instance: the eligibility of traditional varieties for the purposes of vineyard restructuring, including premiums for the grubbing-up of those varieties; maintenance of the supplement to the special premium for the fattening of bovine animals, so as to encourage farmers who have no more milk quota to change over to beef and ensure that the added value of fattening does not leave the region in the form of very young cattle for export; the flexibility of granting aid for the marketing of plants and flowers without the need to draw up annual contracts with producers’ organisations, which would be impossible in view of the inadequate organisation of agriculture in these regions; the extension of aid to the marketing of potatoes for human consumption; the increase in production rights and premiums for strategic productions, such as suckler cows, bovine animals for fattening, or sugar beet; improvement of the special supply arrangement with the inclusion of certain raw materials essential for the competitiveness of the compound feedingstuff production sector and consequently for the livestock sector. In conclusion, Parliament has done its job, having made a real effort to hold a dialogue both among Members themselves and between Members and those politically responsible for the outermost regions of the European Union. We now hope that the Council will also do its job by accepting the measures approved by the Committee on Agriculture and this Parliament. In accordance with this analysis, the European People’s Party will vote in favour of this proposal, and I should like once again on behalf of my group to express our deepest thanks to the rapporteur for the great diligence and openness with which he drew up this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, all of us here must have realised that we are witnessing an unprecedented act of blackmail against the Yugoslavian people, especially the Serbian people. To be specific, these people suffered merciless bombing by NATO for 78 days, with the active participation of the European Union; today they are subject to inhumane blackmail on the pretext of the democratisation of the Federal Democracy of Yugoslavia, in other words, they must overthrow their legitimate government in order for the fuel embargo to be lifted and they are to be given the funds to reconstruct what was flattened by NATO and European Union bombs. As far as we are concerned, this is a policy of de facto genocide. The issue therefore is not whether a few tonnes of oil will be given to orphanages and old peoples’ homes, but whether the necessary funds will be given to Yugoslavia, to its legally elected government – let us once and for all respect international law fully, and not selectively – so that we can restore the damage and stop the political genocide of the Serbian people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Söderman, we in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, and myself personally, are proud that our Ombudsman is courageous, enterprising and able to act. It is extremely important that we have someone with such integrity who has dared to stand up for openness and transparency and against the culture of underhandedness, secrecy and, unfortunately in certain cases, of cheating and corruption, which also exists in the European institutions. Only an open and public administration can win support among those who are working here amongst the politicians and among the citizens whom we represent. The line the Ombudsman is pursuing has a lot of support amongst the citizens of all Member States. It is an indisputable fact, and there are several international scientific reports to prove it, that there is a crystal-clear connection between a high level of openness and transparency in the administration and a low level of corruption. The opposite is also true: a closed and secretive administration tends to foster a higher level of corruption. That is, of course, also true in the European institutions. That is why it is so important for us to have a completely independent ombudsman who can act independently and without being subject to any lobbying whatsoever or to interested parties attempting to influence him. The increasing proportion of complaints coming from citizens also points to the need for our Ombudsman, who really acts in the interests of the citizens. The only criticism that can be directed at the Ombudsman is probably that, unfortunately, the institution is still far too little known in many Member States and that far too few citizens are aware of this right. This is probably something which I would like to see concentrated on in the future. To summarise, the Ombudsman fulfils a very important function. I would like to congratulate him on the work he has carried out during the year and wish him luck in the future.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, almost all ordinary citizens of Israel wish to live in peace in their own country. They wish to have a country with secure borders and normal diplomatic relations with all its Arab neighbours. How can we help extinguish the fire that has devastated Palestine and reduced the people to a life of humiliation, fear and deprivation of the basic amenities of life? Jewish people, Muslims and Christian Palestinians worked and lived together for centuries before Israel was established. The Jewish people dreamt about their own country and they got it, and rightly so. The Palestinians, both Muslims and Christians, dream and wish to have their country as well and they will not rest until they have a secure and viable state based on a just and fair settlement. How can the EU help? Let us stop being polite and politically correct. To my delight today is the first time in my two and a half years as an MEP that I have heard Members of this House address this topic with such confidence. We have been gagged for all this time. Let us spell out what is needed for such a fair and just settlement; things that we all believe in but are too afraid to say. Firstly, Israel must have the right to exist with a secure border and it must be fully recognised as a state by all its neighbours. Secondly, Israel must respect international law and its own national laws, as well UN Security Council resolutions. Thirdly, Israel must accept neutral international observers under UN sponsorship to facilitate a ceasefire. Ordinary people, Jews, Muslims and Christians, are fed up with their politicians. They want peace now. Let us help them with courage and confidence and say clearly what most of us privately believe, that for Palestine to be a viable state, to allow that state to take back the millions of refugees, there is only one border and that is the border as it was before 1967. That is what Israel has to pull back to. Until that happens there will be no peace in the Middle East and that brings the terror, fear and difficulties that we now see in the European Union. It is time that we spelt out the way it should be. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too consider it an important step but, unlike Mr Haarder, I am extremely dissatisfied. Three obvious things come to mind. Firstly, I find it depressing that a Code allowing arms to be exported to Indonesia up to the summer of 1999 is obviously totally insufficient. Secondly, if the rules are so totally different whereby arms exports to Yugoslavia are prohibited by law, but are permitted to Indonesia, for example, then clearly standards other than those contained in the Code, namely economic interests and trade, hold sway. Thirdly, it naturally occurs to me that the dependency of governments on these economic interests is so great that no uniform standards are enforceable in this regard. It is for this reason that I considered it extremely necessary that this Parliament is included in supervising arms exports, over and above the transparency which is desirable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
First of all I have to say that, in my opinion, the President-in-Office of the Council has not yet answered Mr Korakas’ question. Secondly, and with regard to my specific question, I thank the President-in-Office of the Council very much for his answer. I think that the Council has been bold and has been quick to take some important measures. However, we are faced with the very serious problem of the failure to comply with the measures agreed. The Council knows that in 1989, both the production of feed with animal proteins for feeding ruminants in the United Kingdom and for the production of meat meals were banned. This indicates that the measures that we adopted at the time were good and have guarantees. But our problem is that they are not applied, that there is fraud in fulfilling them. I would therefore like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council if the Council of Ministers is going to give guarantees that the Community rules will be complied with, if it is going to give guarantees that the existing measures banning meat meals are going to be complied with. Which inspectors are going to deal with it? What checks are going to be made? Is this a concern that has been latent in the Council of Ministers? Answer me please, specifically: what food safety guarantees are going to be given that all these measures are to be applied?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I did not want to speak earlier in order not to interfere in the debate. I simply wanted to express my total disagreement with the previous President chairing this sitting with regard to speaking time, since he has not respected the time allocated to the Groups and the time which is, of course, distributed amongst the MEPs. The previous President has clearly discriminated in favour of other MEPs who have been allowed to speak longer than they should have done. Once we take our places, all MEPs are equal and all of us have to respect the Rules. Therefore, although this humble MEP does not represent a multinational lobby, he asks that the time allocated to his group be respected.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, while we are now rejoicing and welcoming new Member States to the European Union, we cannot, unfortunately, put the international situation out of our minds. A few days ago, we were profoundly disturbed by revelations in the Press of appalling tortures inflicted on Iraqi prisoners by the American and British occupying forces. Practices such as these can do nothing other than widen the gulf between North and South, between the West and the Muslim world. Nevertheless, they represent a tendency that must be resisted. If this is to be done, the international community must unequivocally condemn such practices; it must demonstrate the firm determination to bring to light, in so far as is possible, the extent to which they take place and to ensure that those responsible will be brought to justice. In particular, we can have no confidence in any enquiry carried out by the governments of the States concerned. I therefore hope that a United Nations commission of enquiry may be set up as quickly as possible and I ask the President of Parliament, the Commission and the Council to work together to ensure that a request to this effect is forwarded to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Atlantic Dawn seems to be something of a mystery ship, operating off the coast of Ireland, Mauritania or wherever. I have a very simple question for the Commission. Was the Atlantic Dawn built with the aid of money which originated in the European Union budget, going to Ireland to help with this, or not? If so, how much money?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, taking the floor once again on this issue, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I feel bound to recall the situation of Sarajevo ten years ago and the genuine fury I experienced each time a glimmer of hope that emerged as the result of a painstakingly put together agreement was extinguished by a blast of suspicion and fear. This blast was sustained, of course, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, by the radical extremists but above all by the negotiators themselves, as a result of the total lack of trust they demonstrated in their partners and due to the fear that if they stopped acting like an adversary, the latter would take advantage of the agreement to consolidate their positions. It is against this disease of fear that I have fought relentlessly since the renewal of the Intifada re-injected the virus of it into an area where, as Mr Poettering has just said, those who secured peace are today in despair. I am very aware that speaking here, in these comfortable and safe conditions, might appear to be laughable or even blasphemous to those who are suffering physically or whose nearest and dearest are. I wish, however, to set an example and offer our assurance that we are willing to help them. The example we can set involves the reconciliation, here in Strasbourg itself, of nations that have continued, for generations, to live paralysed by the fear of one another. Our assurance means providing the certainty that when Israelis and Palestinians finally agree on the terms of an agreement, with the assistance of the quartet and as a conclusion to your endeavours, Mr President-in-Office the European Union will do everything it can to ensure the political, material and, if need be, military implementation, by deploying peacekeeping forces to replace a wall whose effectiveness will always be in doubt and – yes, Mr Wurtz – which it is impossible to justify.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that this debate must be seen in relation to the one we are going to hold this afternoon on relations with the new neighbouring countries. I believe we are at a key moment to relaunch those aspects which have made least progress in relation to the Barcelona agenda. And of these I am concerned in particular with the cultural and human fields. I believe we must make a great effort here. There is a field in which we could make this effort, if we are able to work on it in all its complexity: movement of people and immigration. We should try to make immigration a factor which strengthens relations and the stability between countries of origin and destination. We should create positive dynamics which could have an effect in economic terms, introducing concepts such as ‘mobility’, which is more suited to our times than the rigid and bureaucratic rules with which we intend to manage immigration. We should reintroduce onto our agenda the concept of ‘co-development’. We will be able to do a lot of work in this field, creating European Erasmuses or supporting local cooperation in many fields. On the basis of this global perspective, we could effectively combat illegal immigration and its most horrendous aspect, which has brought us horrifying images, such as the arrival of bodies, one after the other, on our coasts. We could combat illegal immigration organised by human traffickers. A new agenda, based on the proposals of the Commission and the Greek and Italian Presidencies before Thessaloniki, in relation to immigration and the countries in which it originates, could strengthen the human and cultural pillar of the Conference. Furthermore, so that the people who live amongst us can be a factor in stability and the promotion of our values, we must also work on our integration policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, like other speakers, I think it is deplorable that nothing has happened since Parliament's Echelon report. People still do not feel adequately protected. The Council should adopt a framework decision which provides protection against the activities of intelligence services of other Member States or third countries. The very existence of systems for the indiscriminate interception of communications is a violation of Article 6 of the EU Treaty, as the Commissioner himself has recognised. It is also essential that an agreement should be negotiated and signed between the European Union and the United States, stipulating that each party should observe the provisions governing protection of the privacy of citizens and the confidentiality of business communications. My group is strongly opposed to the actions taken by the Council with a view to bringing telecommunications interception capabilities into line with the new technologies. We particularly oppose the adoption of the directive under which Member States may, inter alia, adopt legislative measures providing for the retention of data for a limited period. The presidency needs to produce some sort of strategy to bring an end to the existence within the European Union of parallel data protection systems and the proliferation of monitoring authorities – for example Schengen, Europol or customs conventions. They work on the basis of differing protection standards and outside true democratic and legal scrutiny. Finally, the promotion of encryption cannot be a substitute for efforts to find political solutions – more strict legal guarantees and effective parliamentary control, for example. To say that encryption will solve our problems is an admission of failure.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there is one fundamental reason why this debate becomes heated at times. It would be very easy to draw on legal arguments. Many Members have already raised the basic question: can the European Union, with great difficulty, adopt an initiative, which does not have backing in all the Member States of the Union? That would be one of the many possible – if you will forgive the expression – hypocritical approaches to the issue. On this matter, there is a basic problem, which politics cannot resolve: politics is the art of the possible and, without a doubt, the art of compromise, but compromise on fundamental values is impossible. Therefore, on this matter, with due regard for the positions of all the Members and with due regard for the positions expressed by the Commission, all the attempts that have been made thus far seek to open the door to a new process, and that process involves tampering with the principle of life. For some, this path is completely acceptable, and for others it is a path which is not acceptable because it runs counter to certain fundamental values. That is why, as I see it, none of the attempts at compromise that have been made – although I commend the wisdom, ability and capacity of the Members – has achieved the ultimate goal. As regards the process in question, I would draw your attention not so much to the initial phase, the phase we are experiencing now, which is extremely important because the treatment of a number of degenerative diseases is at stake, but to what will happen when we have decided to meddle with life: not in the short term, that is, but in the medium and long terms, and these are all questions of eugenics. We are going the same way as we did with the atom: in exploring the possibilities of the atom we made the atom bomb, and now we need rules to take us back a step. At this juncture, therefore, on a matter such as this, which is much more complex and much more sensitive, there may well be a need for further reflection.

Political group: PPE-DE