GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, all reports indicate that Liberia has underlying responsibility for the present conflict in Guinea. Charles Taylor originally came to power through violence and terror, with the sole aim of obtaining control of the diamond trade. He later exported violence to neighbouring Sierra Leone by arming and training the RUF, one of the most savage rebel movements on earth and now the Hitler of West Africa is exporting violence to another neighbour, Guinea. Guinea is in a certain sense the victim of the fact that it admitted hundreds of thousands of refugees from Liberia into its territory, including members of the rebel group opposed to Charles Taylor. The Conakry regime has sometimes reacted in a very unfortunate way, but let us not mistake our adversary. Liberia is the destabilising factor in the region. In any case, according to my information it is incorrect that Guinea is refusing to transfer refugees to areas further from the border. The international organisation for migration has in fact already begun moving a first group of 35 000 refugees. It is clear that a safe corridor must be created as soon as possible for the return of these people. Europe could definitely give unconditional support to the ECOWAS plan for stationing observers in the border area. If violence persists, the Union should also call within the UN for smart sanctions against the leaders of Liberia. European Member States that flout the ban on the import of so-called blood diamonds, must be strongly condemned. Apart from that, Mr President, I feel that the Council should also investigate reports of possible support from France for the regime in Liberia. The situation is critical. If a Sierra Leone scenario is repeated in Guinea there is a risk that in addition to Central and East Africa, West Africa too will be caught up in a spiral of violence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the legal package before us aims at creating a legal basis for certain cultural, educational and youth action programmes. The purpose of these is to provide institutions and organisations in this area with financial support. The European Parliament’s budget has been used, in accordance with the A-30 lines, to support certain institutions, and NGOs that function on a voluntary basis in particular, which have promoted European activity and strengthened European identity. Over the years grants for organisations have become established to the extent that their allocation has been something that former recipients of aid have taken for granted. Selecting which organisations and institutions should receive financial support seems to have been a remarkably arbitrary process. New operators have said that inclusion has been very difficult, as the selection criteria have been vague. The choice seems to have been influenced more by the fact that the organisations selected have had strong advocates on the relevant parliamentary committees than by the quality of their operation being superior to that of others. This detail received attention when the Financial Regulation was being reviewed, with appropriations earmarked in the budget headings finally being cut or cancelled. The legal package now under discussion will create a legal basis for grants to organisations active in the fields of education, culture and youth work. The aim must be for the forms of financial assistance from the European Union to be transparent and properly justified. This means that grants to organisations that are repeated and taken for granted should be few in number or they should not exist at all. Organisations and institutions have to demonstrate clearly that they are centres of excellence and better than others in the field. Funding must be based on applications assessed impartially and fairly. Financing has to be channelled in a way that clearly defines those targets the achievement of which the EU supports, and any recipient of aid must produce a credible report on the use of funds. I wish to thank the rapporteurs, Ulpu Iivari, Doris Pack and Christa Prets for their excellent reports.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we in the British Conservative Group have a strong commitment to protecting our environment and this is an important directive which is capable of doing good both for the environment and for business. However, like many pieces of legislation it could be many years before we see the full impact of it. It is important, therefore, to take the longer view. On the one hand, unfettered commercial activity, as we all know, can destroy the environment. On the other hand, over-regulation closes down commercial life at a stroke. It is precisely this commercial life which we all depend on, on which our culture and our society is based. The second reading position is an excellent starting point and one which we support. However, there are very important points which we need to bear in mind. The first is the absolute necessity to allow the permit and state-of-the-art defences to remain. It would be terrible to see companies in 20 years' time facing prosecutions for things which they did now, which are later judged to have been wrong. I am very concerned also about the workability of the compulsory financial security, whether it is in the form of insurance, bonds or other forms of security. We know perfectly well that the insurance industries are not yet able to offer schemes which would meet the needs of this Parliament or the Commission in bringing forward this legislation. We also know that it would lead to a disproportionate burden on small businesses. Do we wish to be responsible for making small businesses go under because we are putting this compulsory liability on them? Indeed, mention has already been made of the taxpayer having to bear the burden, but if we made this compulsory, it would be Member State taxpayers who eventually would have to stand in place to guarantee this. It is much better to leave this on one side for now and see how the directive begins to work and come back to this in the future. Nor can we be certain that pollution will respect the boundaries of the EU, however large the EU becomes. It is important, therefore, certainly with nuclear matters and pollution at sea, that we use those models to carry on with our international obligations and work with our other partners around the world. Too often the best is the enemy of the good with legislation. We need to be moderate in what we try to achieve today. If we keep with what we are proposing in the common position, this piece of legislation can do some real good and should be welcomed and we welcome it today and we wish to see the directive in place. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I warmly welcome the Swedish Presidency, although the situation in which they find themselves as they assume the presidency may not be a very enviable one. We have recently had perhaps the most confused Summit the EU has ever seen. Problems are being thrashed out right up to the time the agreement is about to be ratified, and that does not, on any account, give a good picture of summits generally or the work of the Council. For that reason, it is very satisfying to note that Sweden, as the country holding the presidency, has indicated its desire to help steer the work of the Council in a specifically more transparent direction. The programme of the Swedish Presidency is full-bodied and ambitious, and it really is time environmental issues in their broadest context were finally taken to the core of any debate in the European Union. The programme of sustainable development drafted for the EU, which has been agreed will form part of the Rio Plus process at the Gothenburg Summit, must contain all those elements of sustainability that have been prioritised for the presidency of the EU. In my opinion, all three E’s are a guarantee of this sustainability. But I am nevertheless slightly worried, and I will now address my words to the Commission, about the timetable for drafting the subjects for debate, for example, for the Gothenburg Summit. How will this timetable make it possible for the European Parliament to be fully involved in the drafting of the programme relating to sustainable development, for example? However, I would like to thank the country holding the presidency for including the issue of the northern dimension on the agenda. And I would once more like to address a question to the Commission, which is how adequate resources – staffing resources, for example – can be guaranteed so that this northern dimension policy also receives the go-ahead for an extension from the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what we are proposing is that in the amendment the words ‘develops a mechanism’ should be replaced by ‘will take place’ and that the words ‘together with the ICAO and ECAC’, that is, the international aviation organisations, should be added. (The President established that there was no opposition to voting on this oral amendment) Regarding Paragraph 3 of the legislative resolution

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in supporting the political dialogue with the Andean Community, let us recall that only a month ago Colombian President Uribe was in this Chamber championing his so-called democratic security policy. However, this is a policy that is not democratic, with violent intimidation leading to the withdrawal of candidates in 100 municipalities at last October's elections. It cannot bring the much-needed security that the Colombian people deserve. Uribe's policies for mass arbitrary arrest have shot prison numbers up by more than 10 000 in the last year. The countryside is flooded with military personnel, and orders have gone out to kill people in groups of four or less in a sickening attempt to reduce the number of recorded massacres without any real diminution in the grisly death toll afflicting the country. Indeed, evidence from the Colombian Commission of Jurists, backed up by the University of Bogota, shows that there has been no reduction in deaths at all. Of course, we also condemn the murderous and brutal activities of the guerrillas, but two-thirds of the human rights abuses are perpetrated by the Colombian military or their paramilitary allies, which Uribe is now cynically seeking to legalise. That is why we should use the political dialogue to maintain Europe's opposition to the military solution represented by Plan Colombia, to condemn human rights abuses on all sides in the Colombian tragedy, to insist that Colombia abide by all the commitments made in the London Declaration of 2003 and to act as advocates for grassroots projects, such as the EU-funded peace laboratories, which truly point the way to a just and lasting peace for Colombia. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a fair wind is blowing the way of the environment and the European Parliament welcomes this. Indeed, by virtue of an unusually fortunate coincidence, directives on waste incineration, on limit values for national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, and ozone in ambient air all feature on today’s agenda. Previously, atmospheric pollution used to be associated with roads and traffic. Today, however, on a large scale, it refers to the whole world, and on a small scale, it even means the house we live in. In short, it means our whole ecosystem, and action must be taken. Setting emission limits for the four main pollutants is a sure way to help to reduce pollution, combat acidification and limit the harmful effects of these pollutants on human health and on plant life. In its proposal for a directive, the European Commission proposes quantified national emission ceilings, which must be met by 2010 for the four pollutants I have just mentioned. Furthermore, it estimates the costs for each Member State of complying with these limits. I think that this is a good strategy. Mrs Myller’s excellent report makes a lucid evaluation of the European Commission’s proposal and considers it to be balanced; the report also seeks to strengthen the proposal in some areas. In particular, the committee approved a compulsory review of the directive by 2004, which will enable there to be a review of the limit values stipulated and measures adopted to ensure that these limit values are respected. All of this seems quite reasonable. Nevertheless, I must ask a question here. Why should we not allow a Member State to prove that it is being treated particularly unfairly because of the way the directive is implemented, as a result, for example, of its geographical situation and its climate and the fact that these leave it at a major disadvantage? Would this not be wise? The EU system for combating atmospheric pollution is thus being extended, strengthened and refined. EU environmental policy is becoming more and more the environmental policy of each Member State, with obvious advantages for all Europe’s citizens.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, one of the great disadvantages of this Parliament is that it is never short of superlatives when it comes to heaping praise upon the presidencies that take place in this regular six-monthly cycle. The disadvantage is that when we really have some genuine praise to give, it does not come with the force that is deserved. For my part, Mr Rasmussen has been an outstanding President of the Council. I would like, on behalf of my party, to congratulate him, coming from – and here I adopt what our President said – not one of the largest European countries. I had said smallest but I obey the President's edict on this. I am bound to say too that my own prime minister may have some personal aspirations for the presidency of the Council if it works on a five-yearly cycle, but I very much hope that Mr Rasmussen has now entered the field in that regard. It is quite right that reference was made to the visionary words of Pope John Paul many years ago. I want to make some reference to Margaret Thatcher's own words at Bruges. These words have sadly become synonymous with euroscepticism, but the real message that Margaret Thatcher gave at Bruges was about a wider Europe. In those circumstances her message about Europe not becoming so inward-looking is one that has been carried forward by Mr Rasmussen and is one that we all celebrate today. I also endorse the remarks of Mr Verheugen. I distance myself from what Mr Abitbol had to say about him because he was quite right in talking about the moral obligation that we have to candidate countries, about the fact that democracy and human rights are the battle that these countries have taken forward. Sometimes we adopt too much of a patronising attitude towards these candidate countries. We have to recognise that both Parliament and peoples will need to ratify entry. I hope we learn the lesson of Nice. That is a message for all of us here. The élites within Europe do not recognise that we have to treat these countries with the respect that they deserve, not only because we want them to vote positively on entry, but because the institutions that we have must become more accountable and more responsive. That is what the Convention is supposed to be all about. We have a structured design for six countries which is now difficult to operate on the basis of 15 countries and which shortly will be a mechanism that will have to serve the interests of 25 countries. The Convention should not become tied down in a debate covering only institutional matters, but must shift its focus to demonstrate how Europe can become a much more accountable and responsive institution for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Lifelong learning is something we all look upon with the greatest benevolence. We can hear that especially from this discussion. When it comes to taking action, however, the situation is often the reverse. I agree with the rapporteur who criticises the Commission’s efforts on behalf of lifelong learning during 1996, the year of the relevant campaign, together with the slipshod evaluation which followed. Lifelong learning is a phenomenon requiring a lot of resources. It demands new thinking on educational policy and calls for financial resources to be prioritised. Allow me to begin by commenting on the new thinking required. In our education systems, we specialise in the contrary, that is to say self-enclosed educational courses, limited by time and with heavy emphasis upon the final examination. Lifelong learning requires the opposite, namely continuity and courses of long duration. It is no longer enough to educate for the immediate needs of the workplace. Now, it is a matter of educating people for life. We therefore need new forms of organisation in education. We need new educational ideas and tools. Perhaps the greatest problem is that which many other speakers have raised, namely access to money. We need to allocate much greater resources to education than we have done up until now, both to the workplace and to the public education system, as well as to other areas. There must be money to pay for the costs of education and also to replace income in the form of wages, especially in the case of those who need to study full-time. It is especially important to be able to finance the fairly long study periods which may be required if people are to be able to move from traditional sectors to new areas of the labour market. Because access to money is always a problem, I think that quantitative objectives are required in connection with expenditure on adult education. Consideration might be given to earmarking a certain proportion of companies’ production costs for this purpose, a specific percentage of the State budget, a particular portion of normal working hours or, if appropriate, a certain number of the individual’s working hours. Alternatively, other similar quantitative measures might be made use of. The Swedish Presidency, which will begin on 1 January 2001, has said that lifelong learning will be one of its priorities. I think we could call upon the Swedish Government to propose just such quantitative objectives for lifelong adult education. Many speakers here in the Chamber have agreed about the need to set financial priorities. Perhaps we could issue a joint statement to the Swedish Presidency on this issue.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I concur with the previous speaker; 23 million people live in a democracy in Taiwan, an established democracy, and Taiwan is by no means a country which causes us continual headaches. Nonetheless, it is the topic of this urgent debate. These 23 million people and their democratic society are excluded from international organisations. This is not a country which is first and foremost an aid beneficiary; it is a country which actively supports international organisations. Taiwan has been actively involved in the WHO. It would be a mistake if this country were unable to join the international community, which is why we could make a start by giving it observer status and letting it work with other international organisations in the future. Perhaps there is some sort of half-way status which Taiwan could be granted. My question to the Commission is, are you prepared to support Parliament here?

Political group: Verts-ALE
A democratic Turkey is welcome in the EU – provided that conflicts with neighbours and minorities are solved. Turkey constitutes a test of principle for the EU. Is the EU to remain a closed-off Judaeo-Christian fortress with its claws out or to become a broad organisation of cooperation between all European peoples, nations, regions and linguistic and cultural groups? For the Group of the , the answer is clear: we hope that Turkey will continue on the path of reform so that formal negotiations concerning EU membership can be begun next year. I am in favour of Turkish membership provided that the country, for example, reduces the role of the army in political life and, if need be, completely abolishes the National Assembly; that the country’s minorities – the Kurds, Armenians and Syrians – are given the same rights as other citizens; and that freedom of expression is guaranteed. The report also repeats an old desire from previous EP resolutions in 1987 and 2002 to the effect that Turkey must acknowledge the genocide that took place in Armenia in 1915. A reconciliation between Turks and Armenians must not fall through because of an historic argument of interpretation, but it is rather odd that contemporary Turkish politicians have such difficulty in acknowledging an historical fact without reservation – that, in desperation, the Fascist Young Turkish regime ordered the mass murder of Armenians, something for which the Young Turkish leaders were punished by Turkish courts after the war.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have to give the House some good news, and I am sure you will welcome it as such. Yesterday’s newspapers, published today in press reviews across Italy, said: “Long-life gene discovered: life could be increased by a third”, or by 35% to be precise. Therefore, I think that, if at the moment I am hoping to reach 90, I will actually reach 130. You will say, what does this have to do with counterfeit travel documents? I will tell you straight away. You know that I am the representative of the Pensioners’ Party, elected to Parliament from that list. The pensioners are always asking me what they are cooking up in the pot in Brussels. They are aware of the fact that in Brussels – but above all in the fifteen Member States of the Union – they take these pensioners and they throw as many of them as possible into boiling water. This is what has been happening for some time, and, with this new piece of news, I think that the pot will be heated even more so that even more pensioners can be boiled, if possible all together. In addition to the serious harm that they know they have to suffer, there is also the fact that, unfortunately, being elderly, they more than other people are more likely to be the targets of the criminal acts which, throughout the European Community, are sadly being perpetrated by many people who illegally enter the Union and then commit them once they are in. I would therefore like to say to my friends and fellow Members, Mr Gebhardt and Mr Schulz, that, firstly, in the amendments tabled by Mr Newton Dunn, the need to combat crime and the trade in human beings is not avoided but confirmed. I would also like to say that if these criminals do not enter illegally, then they will not commit crimes either; if, on the other hand, they are decent people and have their travel documents in order, then we are quite happy for them to enter. It is precisely for this reason that we are saying that what this measure is doing is positive – even if it reminds us of Arsène Lupin, the gentleman thief – but it would be much better to have a European electronic identity card which is the same in all the States. Above all, it would be much better for supervision at European borders to be increased, on the borders of Spain, Greece and Italy as well as Eastern Europe... It is pointless to invest money, effort and hard work for other reasons. We must prevent large numbers of people illegally entering the European Union who then go on to commit crimes. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE