GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I decided to vote against the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro report, although I am a convinced European and I care about the future of the European Union. However, I do not think that the preamble offers any real guarantee on conditions for an enlargement that will be fair to all the countries involved. In addition, the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be binding means that it will not be possible to provide a solid framework for a Europe in which the issue of the greatest deprivation of rights must remain a priority, for example the protection of workers from the arrogance of certain employers. Finally, the absence of any clear affirmation of the equality of social, economic and political rights between foreigners or immigrants and European nationals worries me enormously, at a time when the sudden upsurge in the populist xenophobic vote is setting the heart of Europe ablaze, in Austria, Lombardy, Italy and Switzerland, when we see the extreme violence of the ultra-right and extremist movements in Germany, or of the hooligans in Great Britain, or when we consider the fate of thousands of people living in our countries without papers, who are at the mercy of those who traffic in human misery in all its forms. These are serious shortcomings. As for the lack of action following the election violence in Spain, described as a pogrom by commentators, this is not worthy of Europe. Finally, the fact that the dimension of a Europe turning towards the countries of the south, in particular Africa which is sinking into economic, health and ecological misery, is not really a matter of priority, the fact that there is no provision for simply abolishing the debts of third-world countries and increasing aid to those countries, and also the lack of any thoughts as to how to restore equilibrium between the CFA franc and the dollar, the yen and the euro, all these things will serve only to increase the growing imbalance. The fact that the IMF and the World Bank have admitted their responsibility surely means that the development of Africa deserves to be made a priority, in view of our colonial history. This does not, of course, detract from the serious work of the rapporteurs and the recent declarations by the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, which both point in the direction of a more fraternal, mutually supportive and just Europe, but which seem to contradict the positions taken up by Mr Schröder and Mr Blair. Our Europe deserves a Treaty of Nice which is along the lines of the recent declarations, or at least closer to the declarations of the two heads of the French Government.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, these reports are about allowing people the choice whether or not to eat GM food. The only way to do that is with an effective labelling and traceability scheme that will tell consumers exactly what they want to know, which is whether the food or feed is being produced using GMOs. That means labelling food and feed that contain GMOs or have been produced with GMOs, so that when people pick up a packet or a tin in a shop, they can see if this is a GM product or not. That effect would not be achieved with a GM-free label. Apart from the difficulty of ensuring that products are 100% GM-free, why should we put all of the responsibility, expense and inconvenience on to those who do not use GMOs? That would push up the price of GM-free goods and put them out of the reach of many consumers. Those who use GMOs should have the legal obligation to label and to take all steps necessary to avoid contaminating conventional or organic produce. Talking about thresholds for adventitious or accidental contamination but then making those who do not use GMOs responsible for meeting those thresholds contradicts the 'polluter pays' principle. We should reject any threshold for unauthorised GMOs, which should not be allowed to reach the market. In the case of approved GMOs, however, we should accept only the lowest achievable tolerance level. This means that the most recent state of science and technology will be taken into account. I know from the response from my own constituents that consumers are extremely concerned about this issue and are strongly in favour of the traceability and labelling of GM food and animal feed. I also know that many major voluntary organisations, consumer organisations and supermarkets strongly support this kind of scheme. I hope that tomorrow this Parliament will adopt a stringent scheme to give consumers the real choice and the confidence that they are demanding of us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, 200 years ago, there was a slave revolt in San Domingo. The slaves overthrew their French masters and established the world's first black republic, which they named Haiti. A Proclamation of Independence pledged both brotherhood to those former masters whom 'do us justice' and 'its government henceforward to be one of justice'. That was as good as it ever got for Haiti, which in our lifetime has sunk into poverty and terror. It has become a byword for state-sponsored violence and horror, with the Tonton Macoutes and the years of Papa Doc. With Aristide came a beacon of hope, which was snuffed out by a military coup, reinstated, but then the country steadily lapsed into a regime of economic decline, human rights abuses, murderous militias and dubious electoral practices. Now it has imploded again. Bodies lie in the streets – victims of all sides – and children caught stealing beg for mercy to spare their lives. Children are at risk from hunger and disease. Factories and warehouses lie demolished, and with them have gone the jobs. Armed bandits, drug traffickers and death-squad leaders are exploiting the leadership vacuum. The world listened too late to Caricom's increasing anxiety, as so eloquently expressed by Louis Straker, Deputy Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, at the ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Addis Ababa a few weeks ago. By that point it was too late to bring the government and opposition together – not that the opposition was particularly helpful when it came to sticking to its conditions for cooperation. What can be done? France has sent troops to join those of the US. Presumably they will keep their EU partners informed, consult with them, and call on them as and when necessary. Should the rest of us wring our hands and leave it to them? Do we follow in the wake of UN resolutions? Do prepare and activate our humanitarian and subsequent development aid? Do we contribute to the cost of peacekeeping? Do we respond to UN calls to unblock roads to bring food and aid to the north? Do we help the local police to recapture the 3 500 prisoners who have escaped from 20 prisons, making it difficult to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes during military rule? We need to do all these things. We need to release the frozen EDF monies. We need, once the multinational interim force has re-established order, to support CARICOM initiatives for a stabilisation force. We need to give support to the Prime Minister, Gérard Latortue, appointed by the Council of Wise Men, and the interim President, Alexandre. Then we need to help with bringing the guilty to justice and the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission. On a day when terror has struck on our own continent, in Spain, and our hearts are with the people of Spain, we need to find room in our hearts for the people of Haiti too and to lend them our support and help them to have justice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of my committee, I would like to highlight the importance of Hong Kong in terms of international trade. Back in 1997, Hong Kong was ranked eighth in the list of major world trading powers and tenth in the list of European Union trading partners. Since then, and despite the Asian financial crisis, trade relations between the European Union and Hong Kong have gone from strength to strength. As far as relations between Hong Kong and its international trading partners are concerned, more specifically the World Trade Organisation, the EU and Hong Kong share a number of common goals and the two work very closely together, which is useful in the light of the forthcoming trade round. In my recommendation, I referred to the important role which Hong Kong could play when China joined the World Trade Organisation. Hong Kong could show China how an open, fully integrated market can play a leading role in the region and can in this way achieve economic development and sustained growth. Moreover, since Hong Kong constitutes a major sales market for China, Hong Kong can exercise influence on economic reform in China. For these reasons, we must stress the importance of closer cooperation between the European Union and Hong Kong in financial terms and in terms of trade and direct foreign investments. Hong Kong has concluded many bilateral agreements over the past few years. We should bear in mind that in the framework of the EU-China agreement with regard to the possible accession of China to the World Trade Organisation, these bilateral agreements will need to be reviewed. Although, economically speaking, we are right to term the relationship with Hong Kong a success, I should highlight a number of drawbacks, including the fact that the protection of intellectual property rights remains a huge problem. Our companies are still being faced with violations of copyright and the manufacture and sale of counterfeit products. We also have concerns in the social field. After all, working conditions reportedly leave a great deal to be desired, especially vis-à-vis immigrant workers. As far as the inquiry is concerned, we must call for both Hong Kong and the European Union to play a valuable role in the many projects which are in the pipeline.

Political group: ELDR
Why is it so difficult to bring about change? To arrive in Afghanistan or Kabul is to enter a world that is exclusively male. Men with piercing eyes scowling at women. Some men may have changed outwardly, but on the inside they are still the same. When you wander around the famous Chicken Street in Kabul, for example, you see women in dirty old burkas begging, children begging, men standing around chatting. We must not forget that there is still a culture of men who think that women should not be educated. Are there any solutions? Yes. In a country in which people have always fought each other, you must involve women, you must put women in a prominent position, and this must be enforced. After all, can we imagine a society in the European Union which provides healthcare without women, where there is education without women, for example? This is only one of many examples.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Representative of the Council, Commissioner, a week ago, the big international Holocaust Conference ended in Stockholm. Its aim was to combat the forgetfulness and the evil in today’s society which takes the form of xenophobia and neo-nazism. It would be an insult to the idea behind this conference and to the whole of the international community to invite, at this time, into the institutions of the EU, a xenophobic party which flirts with Nazi ideas. Secondly, I want to say that we must be consistent in our own behaviour and in our evaluations. We demand of the candidate States and of the countries with which the EU cooperates under the Lomé Agreement that they should respect human rights and show tolerance towards their neighbours. We must do the same as far as we ourselves are concerned. That is why we are reacting against this carry-on in Austria. It is not acceptable to continue as if nothing had happened. We are at a watershed in the history of the European Union. The Union is not only an economic community but also a community of values, something which we take seriously. Something has happened. The European Union is in the process of finding its soul and getting some steel in its spine.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, company structures in the European market need to be made more efficient if Europe is to hold its own in the global market. It must also be possible to restructure companies between one EU country and another. This directive will probably not create the clear regulations which are now needed on the international stock market, but the battle is not yet lost. The problem is that stock exchange law is closely associated with company law and that it is difficult to harmonise the one area if the other is not harmonised. However the regulations are drawn up, someone will suffer. In a small market like Sweden’s, with relatively concentrated ownership, harmonising the level at which offers must be made at 30 per cent will create problems, and we are demanding greater flexibility. Greater flexibility is also required when it comes to the complete duty of neutrality recommended by the Council. German companies will have problems because Germany’s company law prohibits vote diversification. Greater understanding must be shown for national characteristics. Otherwise, there may be devastating consequences for an individual Member State’s company structure. It would, however, be easier to solve the problem of which supervisory authority is to have jurisdiction. The most flexible solution would be to choose the supervisory authority in that country in which the target company has its head office. Companies may be quoted on different markets, and companies with head offices in Sweden are not always quoted in Sweden. It would be strange to say the least if, for example, American authorities were to be responsible for a takeover involving two European companies. Anyone who wants to avoid such consequences has the opportunity to vote in favour of Amendment No 19, which makes it clear that it is the target company’s head office which counts. If we do not defend the duty of neutrality, there will be no point to the directive. If, moreover, we open the door to defensive measures, we shall perhaps make it more difficult to restructure European markets and, especially, to protect small shareholders. I just want to emphasise that the Conciliation Committee has a very big responsibility and that success requires everyone to pull together.

Political group: PPE-DE
Since 1993, the EU has had a system in place for Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs). This mechanism has helped to make the agri-food sector more dynamic and to preserve traditional production methods, providing consumers with high quality products. I welcome the Commission proposal to adapt this system, especially as regards continuing to monitor counterfeiting and unlawful imitations, both within the EU and in third countries. One measure, which we believe to be important, would be to insist that products be packaged in the area in which they are produced, so as to provide a guarantee regarding their origin and quality. The current inspection mechanism must be effective, and to this end the existing systems and the activities of national and European bodies must be harmonised and the Member States must be given greater responsibility. I also agree that the owner of a trademark should, in certain circumstances, have the right to register their trademarked product with a PDO or a PGI. Similarly, the product registration procedure must be simplified and made more accessible, making applications easier to assess by the Member States, limiting the role of the European Commission simply to checking the form.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on the subject of the role the European Union can play in the Middle East, I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude for the role played for many years by its representative in the region, Miguel Angel Moratinos, who has worked with few resources, but whose work has been and must be deservedly valued. I hope that his successor will have more resources in order to take action there. I believe that the war in Iraq has contributed to worsening the situation in Palestine. A decision such as the war in Iraq, a unilateral one, has led to a worsening of the situation and an increase in acts of terror. I believe, therefore, that the European Union must strengthen acts of multilateralism such as the Quartet and the establishment of the road map. We must demand from the leaders, both Israeli and Palestinian, the political commitment to seek peace. Selective assassinations must come to an end and terrorist attacks must also come to an end; we must remember that not only terrorists are implicated in an attack, but also those who provide them with resources and those who perhaps turn a blind eye to the preparation of those attacks.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, to lend proper meaning to the sentence, I suggest we do not use the wording “do not deny”, etc. the rights of minorities, but use “taking into account” instead. This has also met with the approval of the person who tabled the amendment. (Parliament accepted the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0364/2000) by Mr Baltas, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the Commission report on the feasibility of negotiating a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the Republic of Croatia [COM(2000) 311 – C5-0506/2000 – 2000/2244(COS)] Amendment No 1:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it may be worthwhile just to reflect for one moment on why it was thought necessary to introduce legislation to make compensation a legal right for those air passengers who face cancellation and delay through no fault of their own. It was thought necessary because some airlines had got into a very bad habit of cancelling flights at the last minute, overbooking flights, inflicting delay because of inefficient operational practices and then, to add insult to injury, they treated their victims – their passengers – with total disdain and little or no sympathy. Members may wish to dwell on the fact that a voluntary code of practice did exist with the more reliable airlines. However, the refusal of the so-called low-cost carriers to sign up to this voluntary agreement and the low levels of compensation given to the victims meant action on a more formal basis was required. The pendulum had to swing back in favour of the consumer to a more reasonable, balanced position. The proposal before us is a first step in ensuring that the travelling public are protected when transport operators fail to live up to their promises and obligations. I look forward to similar schemes being introduced with other modes, particularly ferries and so-called high-speed ships. What we have before us today is not perfect. I regret that the Council of Ministers insisted on charter flights being included. I also regret the removal of extraordinary circumstances in the delay section, but welcome the exemption of rotor operators, the levels of compensation agreed and the inclusion of the low-cost carriers. This proposal is not perfect: it poses many questions in regard to existing legislation and highlights areas where existing legislation is inadequate. I cite the package travel directive as one example. But we must recognise that at last consumers and the travelling public are being given rights that they deserve, backed up with compensation when airlines fail in their promises. Over recent months I have been subjected to every kind of doom-and-gloom scenario from some airlines and even certain Members of Parliament. But remember this: if the airlines do not cancel or overbook, if they run the services they advertise on time and stick to their contract with the travelling public, then this proposal will not cost them one euro. It becomes expensive to airlines when they fail to deliver – and what is wrong with that? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to express my great appreciation for the work of Mrs Lalumière, who has produced an extraordinarily sound document which is also carefully thought out. It has been discussed at length in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and has put us on the right track. Mr President, a European Union which cannot play a clearly defined role in terms of security and defence creates uncertainty on the world stage. In tandem with the Commission and Council, Parliament would like to contribute to a transparent and convincing policy. After all, the European Union cannot escape its responsibility which is commensurate with its economic and cultural stature. The hope that the transfer of tasks and competencies from the Western European Union to the European Union can contribute to this clarity. As the President-in-Office of the Council pointed out, this naturally means that the budget of what may be left of the WEU will be drastically reduced but, to our great amazement, he is at the same time quite negative about the idea that the European Union’s budget should increase accordingly in this respect. This seems extremely illogical to me and leads me to believe that this development is not taken altogether seriously. Mr President, we have emphasised the civil and military aspects of this policy in our resolutions. Both play a major role and the military component should explicitly be embedded in the wider context of the civil component. These are not just pious words, they also have an immediate implication for the way in which this policy is supervised. This is why it is essential that this European Parliament, in which we discuss all kinds of civil affairs with each other all the time, be the place where the military components form part of a wider context in parliamentary supervision too. We know that the civil components will always take priority and the military components will in the first instance be used as a big stick and a last resort. It would therefore be dangerous if this policy were not entirely supervised by us. I also have to say that the nature of the tasks which we have in mind, the Petersberg tasks, is such that here is the ideal place where they can be dealt with. As champions of a Community policy, we are particularly keen for the European Commission’s input, as Mr Patten described it a moment ago, to be at its best. This means therefore that the Council must make this possible and that the personnel and budget required for this should be adequate. Mr President, we do not want to disconnect these tasks from cooperation with North America. Obviously not. In fact, we are very keen for our security to be undivided. This is why it was with some hesitation that, in another resolution, we in the meantime urged that a position be adopted on America’s inclination to determine its own security unilaterally via the ABM system. We do not want this. We want to cooperate with North America in these matters too, but also – and particularly – with sound backing from the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE