GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, my group has given the go-ahead for the vote on this resolution, and I am one of those who support the resolution and am vehemently in favour of a moratorium. We must tread very carefully in this particular war. We are fighting a terrorist regime but we run the risk of not preparing for peace and of becoming embroiled in this conflict with no clear peace programme or prospects. We oppose the death penalty which the Taliban have applied and yet we import it club class in huge American transporters. We abhor Taliban misogyny but say nothing about the rapes carried out by the so-called Northern Alliance – a highly dubious alliance – on a massive scale. The same applies here: obviously we have to use weapons systems in order to bring this war in Afghanistan to a successful close. But, on the other hand, we need to ensure that as many civilians as possible are spared in order to prevent this war from escalating around the world and in order to prevent further escalation in weapons systems, especially now that more and more politicians and former pacifists are suddenly beginning to think in terms of the admissibility of war and to accept war as a policy instrument. Sometimes it has to be the last resort, but what worries me is how comfortable we have become with the idea of war. It is precisely at such times that we need to ban this sort of weapons system and, more importantly, to strengthen international law. We have an international coalition against terrorism, but unless we can cash in on it by strengthening the international law of the United Nations, we shall be prey to other constellations which we absolutely do not want. Hence, as I said, we need to fight terrorism but the ultimate aim must be to strengthen international law and ban – and this too is a topical issue – atomic as well as biological and chemical weapons. Which is where the USA comes in and of course, most importantly, a ban on these cluster bombs which, in our view, are a means of war which endanger civilians to an unreasonable extent. Those who know what damage was caused in the Balkans or Kosovo, mainly because of the mines laid by the Yugoslav army – that too needs to be said – they will understand why, at all events, we need to take a moderate line here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I voted on behalf of the Pensioners’ Party for the 1997 discharge for the Commission. What do pensioners have to do with the discharge? I recall that I was also an accountant and, as such, I would be pleased if as many euro as possible were to stay in the citizens’ pockets. Therefore, Parliament’s scrutiny in granting the discharge is an important function, and I hope that both the Court of Auditors and Parliament will obtain greater powers, and above all that they will exercise greater authority in this scrutiny. I would also like care to be taken to ensure that in order to give one euro to the citizens we do not end up spending ten. In addition, I would like there to be a guarantee that this activity is correct, not only in its form, but also in its content and tangible objectives. - Van Hulten report (A5-0001/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you have remained here to follow this marathon debate, and my thanks go to the Council and the Commission for their statements on the Euro-Mediterranean meeting and the situation in the Middle East. We in Parliament naturally wish to keep abreast of developments, and my own group supports all balanced attempts to achieve a state of peace in the Middle East. Simply to discuss this issue from one month or one week to the next, however, seems almost grotesque. We in Parliament cannot influence the situation in any concrete way. We come here to speak to whoever happens to be listening, but do we then go away feeling pleased with ourselves, having done so? I hope we do not. It would appear that, just as the rescue and clearance work at the World Trade Centre finally reached ‘ground zero’ level, relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians are also at ground zero. An optimist would say, and I am one, that from here on things can and must get better. Commissioner Patten also suggested he hoped this was the case. It seems clear that only through the joint efforts of what has been called the ‘quartet’ – the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and Russia – can progress be made. Solo endeavours, whether those of Colin Powell or the High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana, who are both held in high regard, do not produce results. One of the parties in the dispute always suspects the other of being biased. When a mission that seems as clear as the one Secretary-General Kofi Annan sent President Martti Ahtisaari on to investigate the devastation at Jenin and the number of human casualties there meets with suspicion on the part of the other party, we really are at ground zero point. President Ahtisaari, who I know well, could hardly be accused of prejudice. The international community must unite to achieve the only possible solution: the Palestinians must have their own unified state, whose entire area they have complete sovereignty over, and not just the whole of the land area but also the waters that surround it and the airspace above it. The Israelis must be given an unconditional assurance that their children, their old people, and mothers and fathers can travel in absolute safety within the territory of their own state without the threat of continued, devious, terrorist bomb attacks. Only this can be the basis of a constructive common existence built on mutual respect. Mr President, I do not believe in sanctions – pressure should suffice – but unless constructive, genuine and goal-conscious talks get under way soon and furthermore lead to a result there will definitely be a feeling of déjà vu. How long and how pointless were the talks in the former Yugoslavia before sanctions were imposed? IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
The Group of the European People’s Party was obliged not to vote in favour of this text despite the importance that our group attaches to the respect and protection of fundamental rights. All of the Charter, yet nothing but the Charter. Once again this principle, approved by the Parliament, has not been respected. From the shopping list to the militancy, as well as personal opinions being put forward, this report is a catalogue of ideological yet irrational wishes. Many of the points raised concern neither fundamental rights in general nor those at the heart of the European Union. The European People’s Party does not agree with the alleged progress in certain areas (notably regarding the right to asylum) nor the tendency to extrapolate the letter of the Charter on certain issues relating to discrimination. Furthermore, quoting countries only serves to weigh down the text and to awaken pointless nationalist reactions. Has the Charter, as it is written, been respected during the course of the year in the territory of the EU? That is the subject of the report that Parliament should produce, and ensure that it is given a broad political basis.

Political group: PPE-DE
This resolution sets out the concerns that must be shared by the world-wide community about the deterioration of stability in Pakistan and in its neighbouring territories. We are certainly right to regret the military take-over but it would be sensible to recognise that the new military regime is so far extremely popular within Pakistan. Pakistan clearly expects General Musharraf to succeed in stopping a long series of corrupt and illiberal factions. The Sharif and Bhutto regimes have misruled their country for many years. Certainly the military are tackling the financial fraud that exists on a massive scale with vigour. This motion speaks wrongly of the need for democracy to be reinstalled or reinstated. It should be a calling for progress towards democracy and proposing a practical programme for the European Union that will facilitate that progress. Fighting corruption is an essential first step. I trust that the Portuguese Presidency will use its renowned skills and experience to develop European Union appreciation of the problems that confront Pakistan and I would welcome Mr Lamy's opinion on the current status of the Cooperation Agreement.

Political group: ELDR
I voted for the motion, Mr President. I agree that we should proceed with the mutual recognition of financial penalties since we do not seem to be able to achieve an agreement to establish a single European penal code or a single European code of criminal procedure. However, I would not want this makeshift solution to become a definitive one. I feel that Europe must gradually approximate Member States’ legislation and only accept mutual recognition where a genuine agreement cannot be achieved. I therefore hope that, next time, we will be voting not on the mutual recognition of financial penalties but on a code of procedure for uniform financial penalties throughout Europe. - Kauppi report (A5-0450/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of rapporteur Rocard, I would like, in any case, to table an oral amendment to Amendment No 1. I would like to propose – and this has been agreed in consultation with other political groups, that ‘and with the support of Eurostat’ be added at the end of this amendment. I understand that this will meet with the approval of the other groups. So let us add ‘and with the support of Eurostat’. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to raise an issue which is closely related to the debate on the future of Europe. Furthermore, I am delighted that President Prodi is present, and I believe that the Council is also present. I have discovered, by means of a communication to the three European schools – and the Members of this House well know that the European schools are highly active when it comes to approving the budget – that on 7 March a debate will be held with the pupils of the European School, section III, in which the President-in-Office of the Council and Swedish Prime Minister, Mr Persson, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, and the Prime Minister of the Belgian Federal Government, Mr Verhofstadt, will participate. I think that this is a good initiative, but I notice that neither the European Parliament nor the Belgian Parliament will be present, although Mr Verhofstadt will be. And having reread the fourth Annex of the Nice Council conclusions, it seems to me that this initiative, which only brings together members of the Council, does not respond to that debate, which the members of the Nice Council remind us of so insistently. Madam President, I believe that this requires an explanation from you and that you should also approach the very august members of the Council to tell them that, if they want to speak with civil society – in this case the pupils of the school – they must take account of the Parliaments, as they emphasised in the fourth Annex. Thank you very much, Madam President. I await your explanation. I would also ask President Prodi, who is present, and the Council to give us theirs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Taoiseach, I should like to begin by wishing the Irish presidency success in its work over the coming six months. You have set out a number of important priorities for action in the period ahead, not least that of kick-starting the Lisbon agenda on economic reform and competitiveness. I want to concentrate today on the issue of the draft Constitution and the situation following the failure of the Brussels Summit in December. However, as we have made clear on a number of occasions, the Union must also get to grips with advancing the stalled Lisbon process. Ireland has made great economic strides in recent years, but throughout the Union there remains a reluctance to embrace genuine economic reform. I was pleased to note in the press this week that the Commission wishes to take forward the liberalisation of the internal market in services. Such issues are worth tackling in the short to medium term but, as regards the long term, EU Member States need to be more ambitious in their approach. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by the reality that liberalisation in areas such as medicine, legal and fiscal advice and employment agencies, whilst worthy, is essentially a distraction from the big picture of further liberalisation in the telecommunications, energy and financial services sectors. I urge the Taoiseach to exert his influence over the Union's agenda in the months ahead to promote real and lasting economic reform. If he sets the agenda, he will have our full and enthusiastic support. On the question of the draft Constitution, which came to grief at Brussels last December, I would simply say this: our view has always been that the draft Constitution was moving the EU in the wrong direction. The aspirations of the Laeken Summit two years ago, when the Heads of Government expressed the hope that the Convention would bring the Union closer to its citizens, has singularly failed to materialise. I would in any case like to ask the Taoiseach, in the light of the collapse of the talks, to answer one very specific question. In recent correspondence I have had with Mr Peter Hain, the British Government's main representative on the Convention, he refers to the ‘Treaty that we agreed at the European Council ...’. Does the presidency recognise that a treaty was ‘agreed’, or is it the case, as has been said before, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed? We all need to have urgent clarification on that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, while some of the motivations behind this initiative are obviously very good, the /EFA Group has a number of questions about the initiative, both on the details and the general thrust. On the detail, as has been said, about 99% of LDC exports already enter EU markets duty free. The problem is not so much about access as about supply-side constraints, about issues concerning infrastructure, education and training. Agriculture is the key area where LDCs do not currently have access, yet it is precisely the area in which we see delays in relation to sugar, rice and bananas. Others have raised legitimate concerns about food security in poorer countries. Rather than using their land for ever-increasing exports of agricultural commodities to the north, there are important questions to be asked about feeding their own populations. I want to raise the question of the general principle behind this initiative. When I was at the ACP meeting in Gabon earlier this year, Commissioner Nielson praised the initiative by saying that it was a great sign of progress that poor countries are now being thrust into competition with each other. To me that is not a sign of progress, but a sign of madness. If the poorer countries compete with each other on small numbers of commodities that can only bring down international prices, with the winners being those in the north, not those in the south. Markets in the north are not, sadly, infinite. We are already seeing how the EBA risks undermining the Cotonou Agreement and how the preferential access that has already been guaranteed to ACP countries is now coming under threat. In some senses the EU is being accused of taking from the poor to help the poorest. Finally, I am concerned that open markets and global integration are becoming a substitute for development policies. We need to think more imaginatively about supporting poorer countries in their own regional development strategies.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, thanks are due to Mr Haarder for a basically splendid piece of work. There is, nonetheless, one point on which I have to say that I disagree with the rapporteur. When I read the Danish version of Mr Haarder’s report, I thought for one brief moment that Mr Haarder had grown wiser with the years, and I had taken note of the fact that there is now a judgement from the Danish Supreme Court stating that so-called ‘exclusive agreements’ do not contravene human rights. I believed and hoped that I could declare myself in agreement with Mr Haarder in emphasising the individual’s right to membership of trade unions. When, however, the report is read in other languages, it can be seen that Mr Haarder has not grown wiser. Either that, or he is hiding it very well. From a number of unclear wordings, it looks as if the rapporteur is continuing his crusade against the Danish model, in which employees and employers are able to agree that only members of a specific trade union can be employed in a specific area of work. No one is being deprived of the right to work and no one is being deprived of the right to belong to a trade union, but individuals cannot benefit from extensive social agreements without also being themselves members of precisely that union which has produced the agreements. Mr Haarder goes much further in his assault, for he tries indirectly to strengthen those unions which do not recognise precisely those collective victories which have helped create the welfare and the human rights which we have spent all day debating.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to join my fellow group chairmen in paying tribute to your thoroughness, to your respect for pluralism and to your genial nature in dealing with people. You have shown that there are no small groups, only men and women with a devotion to duty. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Prime Minister Rasmussen, Commissioner Verheugen, after the Copenhagen Summit there is every reason to congratulate and thank Denmark, and above all her Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, Mr Møller, and former Member, Mr Holter, on and for the smooth and steady advance of the Danish presidential term from start to finish, but mainly on account of their success in the enlargement negotiations that required such precision. Prime Minister Rasmussen told the applicant countries what was what, if you will forgive the expression, but in a way they could accept. I do not, however, want to forget either the enormous contribution made by Commissioner Verheugen in the negotiations that led to the success of enlargement. Many sceptics along the way must have aroused justified anger in you. Perseverance, however, was rewarded with success, and I think Parliament should acknowledge that across the parties. Enlargement emphasises just how important our neighbours are. Russia has not become a new neighbour with enlargement, but an incomparably more important one none the less. The border will lengthen by hundreds of kilometres in 2004. When Romania and Bulgaria join in 2007 three countries still in a state of turmoil will be surrounded by the Union and Russia. These are Belarus, Ukraine and Moldavia. I am not proposing increased assistance for Russia, even though we spend only a fraction on cooperation with this our most important neighbour compared with what we spend on cooperation with the Mediterranean region. Nevertheless, the Union’s political focus should be firmly on Russia, and Russia should be helped, and even pressured, to introduce reforms. After that we can initiate private business interaction on a new level with the Russians and start investing in Russia. The Chairman of our group, Mr Hans-Gert Poettering, has already mentioned the worst problem: the war in Chechnya. I am in full agreement with him on this matter. An example of the injustice and corruption that still reign supreme is the necessity to terminate the TIR cargo system agreement with Russia, as it simply does not work there: drivers of freight have had to be prepared for the most diverse range of charges, to grease palms, rather than engines. As the Commission will be getting 10 new Commissioners in 2004, I think one of them should be appointed to be responsible for relations with our neighbours to the east, Russia in particular, with regard to day-to-day problems. Let us leave high level foreign policy to the High Representative, wherever he or she has her home in the future. Another Commissioner could focus, for the sake of balance, on developing real content for cooperation in the Mediterranean region. If one of Russia’s neighbouring countries, including my own, had a Commissioner specially qualified to offer support when problems arise and when positive developments start to take place, the EU could be involved as a background power in talks in quite a different way than is the case now. There is, furthermore, good news coming out of Russia: the economy is growing. This is good for both Russia and the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many thanks and, on behalf of my group, I would like to thank Mr Berend, who has speedily drawn up this excellent report in exceptional circumstances. We must certainly all agree that we need a flexible tool that allows for quick action to repair damage caused by major disasters. Establishing the Solidarity Fund is such an important issue, however, that more time should have been set aside to discuss it. During the Committee debate and afterwards many factors came up which we have had insufficient time to consider properly. Our group is in favour of establishing the fund. The threshold for the use of the aid must be kept high. The fund must concentrate on immediate costs during the initial stage of major natural disasters. Actual reconstruction does not form part of the fund’s remit. Risk factors must be addressed through insurance and preventive measures whenever possible. It is also important that the fund should not become a new variation on the Structural Funds, to be used up on a yearly basis. It must only be used when there has been an exceptional, major disaster, when help is really needed. One or two questions came up after the committee debate. I would like to ask the Commissioner what the position will be on major disasters taking place in third countries and resulting in suffering for people in the Member States and the applicant countries. Secondly, what will the maximum amount of aid be as a percentage of the costs of damage?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 12 July the Commission presented a proposal for amending the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, although we are expecting an evaluation report from the Commission in December 2000 on functioning of this very market organisation. If we change some points now in anticipation of that, the Commission will then have to use this evaluation immediately to review the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables and make the necessary changes. Joining together producer groups and forming producer associations, and commercial cooperation between producer organisations from various regions, are all particularly important for the fruit and vegetables market sector. This should be the starting point for the COM. Nevertheless, we also have to bear in mind those farmers who energetically sell part of their production direct to consumers from their farms, for the benefit of themselves and their families. For many farms, direct sales bring much-needed additional income, and they are often run by farmers' wives as an independent part of the business. Furthermore, direct sales from the farm emphasise the regional nature of products and thus appeal to a certain type of consumer. The amendment to Article 11(1)(c) must therefore be framed in such a way that producers, in agreement with producer groups, can sell a proportion of their products – to be agreed on a case-by-case basis – direct to consumers for their personal use. If the present rigid limit is maintained, producer organisations will be obliged to expel members who do not respect these rules. The result would be that the producer organisations' sales volume would fall and that they would lose their influence over these producers' direct sales activities, as regards complying with quality standards, observing production guidelines and pursuing joint market strategies. I therefore ask you to take this into account also.

Political group: PPE-DE