GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have a point of order. We have just heard the Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio, briefly listing dozens of amendments that the Commission can accept and others it recommends that we reject. Would it not be possible to have that list in writing, since we will be voting in ten minutes’ time? Nobody had time to note down the amendments the Commissioner listed. I am making this comment because as a rule the Commissioner present gives the Commission’s voting recommendations orally. We have no written document before us and, in future too, I would like the Commission to inform the Members of its recommendations

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have been most surprised by the arguments from the Council and the Commission suggesting that a marketing ban would be, as they say, 'not WTO-secure', yet the WTO rules in this area are distinctly unclear. It is just as likely that a marketing ban will prove to be 'WTO-secure' as it will 'WTO-insecure'. The point is this: the arguments about WTO rules are purely hypothetical. It is not entirely appropriate in my view to move from the arguments of substance for and against a marketing ban to a much more convoluted and esoteric debate about WTO law. A more honest approach – the approach advocated by this Parliament – is to adopt a marketing ban as soon as possible, and then deal with the WTO aspects separately in the unlikely event that our laws are successfully challenged in the WTO. That would be a better approach, both right in principle and right in practice.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to raise the same point as Mr Wurtz, that is, the new American programme to develop nuclear weapons, and to point out that this is not merely the next stage in the nuclear weapons competition, with incalculable consequences for mankind. The intention is to change the traditional perception of nuclear weapons, with the very real possibility of their being used in a first strike. Similarly, countries which have no nuclear weapons of their own are being threatened with nuclear attack and the Pentagon report even suggests that conventional weapon systems should be given a nuclear capability. Those who call themselves the guardians of civilisation are proving once again to be barbarians and the most dangerous terrorists of all. If the nations of the world do not stop them in time, our planet may well cease to exist.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to thank our rapporteur for the serious work she has done; however, I cannot agree with her on the approach which she has opted to take. In a society in which everything can be bought and sold, culture is in immediate danger of commercialisation, which changes its nature. Cultural creation is no longer the art created either collectively by society or by gifted people. It is becoming a product which is produced and sold, so that it can be converted to business profit, as well as a means of ideological guidance of the peoples, by promoting a specific way of life. Under these conditions, approaching culture in terms of the industry, the market and added value, as if we were talking about cars or oranges, is very dangerous. Of course, the report expresses a number of concerns about cultural diversity. However, it is not these that determine its content, it is concerns that the European art markets have lost an important share of the global market, that the European Union has not yet developed its potential as regards the trade in cultural commodities. Company mergers are considered dangerous not because they result in monopoly control, but because they jeopardise market transparency. Even piracy is condemned not as theft of intellectual work, but because it deprives these industries of vast revenues, impacting on future investment. The proposals are in keeping with the concerns expressed. The report calls for the intervention of the Commission and the Member States not in order to strengthen artistic creation and protect it from commercialisation, but in order to strengthen companies and promote the competitiveness of the European industries. This sort of intervention will further institutionalise culture and put it under even greater control by the monopolies. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to draw your attention to the amendments proposed by our political group, in a bid to mitigate somewhat the consequences of the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order. I wanted to raise this point yesterday, but you did not authorise me to intervene. I want to draw your attention and that of Parliament to the fact that on 29 April the Council signed two legislative acts without having had the opinion of the European Parliament, the pretext being that it had fixed a deadline which we had not respected. I want to point out that the same pre-emptive deadline has been fixed for today on the draft agreement with the United States on the air passenger data transfers – the so-called PNR agreement. To avoid the will of Parliament being negated, I request that you send a formal request to the Presidents of the Council and the Commission that they should abstain from taking any decisions before the Court has given its judgment, especially during this electoral period. This would be the minimum that we could expect in the framework of loyal cooperation between the institutions. The delay should not be too long because the Court has already announced a deadline of 6 June for the parties to present their arguments and it seems that the Court is speeding up its proceedings and may well reach a judgment before the summer. In those circumstances, it does not seem too much to ask that the Council and the Commission should respect both our institution and the Court of Justice, and not undermine the rule of law, given that the Court is willing to progress speedily. I fear these two precedents on 29 April. I ask you to invite them formally to abstain from signing the agreement. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
At the height of the Cold War, fleeing from Eastern European countries was something that was encouraged, and refugees were welcome in the West. These days, an increasing proportion of refugees in Europe hail from the developing world, and we are less hospitable. Many asylum seekers eventually exhaust every legal avenue open to them and are then excluded from education, income and housing. This exclusion then becomes an instrument for discouraging newcomers. Many unfortunate people who have been in the West for a long time are relegated to a life of illegality, as a result of which they have to use criminal means in order to acquire an income, which creates a burden on other people. It looks ever more likely that the seriousness of the reasons why people flee a country is subordinated to financial and demographic objectives on the part of the receiving country. As few people as possible needing long-term financial support are received, but more highly trained workers who can fill vacancies for which there would otherwise not be sufficient people available are, in many cases, welcome. The measures proposed in connection with this item on the agenda would particularly benefit this latter group of refugees. Despite these restrictions, it is a step in the right direction if children qualify for compulsory education and learn the language of the country, people can find work promptly, the quality of the housing improves and more account is taken of homosexual partners.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would just like to clarify one point with regard to the voting list. I would ask that we vote against the Committee’s Amendments Nos 21 and 26 in order to be able to support the compromise amendments tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party . (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0193/2003) by Willi Rothley, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the adoption of a Statute for Members of the European Parliament Before the vote on Amendment No 4:

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we would prefer Turkey to be given priority, although if we move it from Wednesday to Tuesday, then there is still room to discuss Ethiopia on Wednesday, if the Council agrees. So, Tuesday Turkey, Wednesday Ethiopia.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am sure that Mr Corbett did not intend to misrepresent my position, but he accidentally did. I strongly agree that the Bureau should decide it; but when the Bureau sits to decide these matters, it should have among it representatives of other parties. That is what I said and I think that is correct.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I want to say that there is a large discrepancy between what the European Parliament normally champions, namely democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and what has happened today, when we have adopted this report by Mr Watson on combating terrorism at a speed completely out of keeping with the analysis that ought to have been carried out and the public debate that ought to have preceded such a report. Adopting the report will have incalculable consequences for the rule of law in the Member States, and there are quite a few NGOs which had warned us against adopting it and called upon us to set a thorough debate in motion and undertake a detailed analysis before doing so. I believe that, in this connection, many of us have taken decisions contrary to our national constitutions in areas such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, democracy and the rule of law.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, may I thank you for the clear opinion you have expressed. I can really only register with indignation the fact that Mr Theonas is displaying sympathy here for a war criminal. I should like, however, to ask you quite specifically what the Council – apart from these sanctions, which I fully and completely approve of – is planning to do in order to provide concrete support to the Serbian opposition this winter. Is a meeting planned, and are there concrete measures to support the Serbian democratic opposition? For that would be of use to the Serbian people!

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome active participation by the EU in crisis management, together with cooperation within the defence industry. On a number of points, I do not however share the rapporteur’s view. There are clauses concerning the CFSP and cooperation with NATO that are all too far-reaching. The EU does not have the same basic objective as NATO, and I am therefore, for example, opposed to drawing up a White Paper on security in cooperation with NATO. Furthermore, I am opposed to the creation of a European munitions institute. There is already practical cooperation in the purchase of military equipment, and I do not believe that the creation of a European institute would contribute any added value.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to refer to Articles 6 and 7 of the European Union Treaty, which indicate, respectively, that that Union is based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the Rule of Law. And that, on the proposal of Parliament or the Commission, the Council can note the existence of a clear risk of serious violation of these principles on the part of a Member State. All of this means, from a legal point of view, that the possible violation of freedoms and rights on the part of a State is the competence of the European institutions. So I would like to vigorously condemn and protest against the anti democratic and illegal abuse I have received from Mr Pat Cox, President of Parliament, who has refused to include in this part-session two questions which I have presented in relation to two possible violations of the Rules of Law, of human rights and fundamental freedoms by Mr Aznar and his Spanish Government. Firstly, because of an apparent lack of respect for the separation of powers, in view of his public statements telling the Spanish Supreme Court that it should agree to the annulment of 240 electoral candidatures which had been legally admitted by the ordinary electoral courts, and secondly for creating a law prohibiting Basque prisoners from studying and taking examinations at the Public University of the Basque Country, the only university that offers education in the Basque language, which may be a violation of the right to linguistic diversity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the story of Zimbabwe is one of hope turning to despair – hope that in 1980 Zimbabwe could have realised its full potential and become a leading country in Africa; despair now because the father of the nation has reduced his creation from being one of the richest and most educated of African countries to being one of the poorest. It is a truly remarkable achievement and a case study of mismanagement in recent history. I am sure Mr Mugabe’s place in history books is now secured for all the wrong reasons. Today the country is suffering from 50% unemployment and 60% inflation; he is spending USD 1 million a day on a foreign adventure in the Congo; the foreign exchange reserves have gone and the World Bank has suspended funding on projects. I was astonished to hear the speech just given by my colleague from the . Yet out of despair comes resolution, determination and hope. The country is one of the most educated in Africa and the European Union should be proud of its role in helping to set up that educational support structure in the past 20 years. It has a functioning civic institution and culture. Elections are due and voter rolls are being prepared but those voter rolls must be verified before the election. The opposition parties want more transparency. Twenty people have been killed and more than 1 200 farms illegally occupied. Mr Mugabe has lost control of the country, presiding over lawlessness and corruption. On 24 June elections are going to be held. Yesterday, the Commonwealth Secretary-General said that it is still possible to have free elections. The future of the country lies with the young people of Zimbabwe. They demand the elections. They must be given a chance. It is their future. One thing we must do is to change the culture that is prevalent in Africa today that the winner takes all. We must stop this winner-takes-all culture that every African country has, and I mean every country. We must be seen to have free and fair elections and to demonstrate that they have been fair and free. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order: I just wanted to engage in 30 seconds of navel-gazing. I agree with everything that has been said about reform. But when we talk about reform, let us not forget the conditions in which backbench MEPs work in this House. David Martin reproached us for not spending more time in the Chamber, but one of the problems is the amount of time we waste getting to this place. I will not relaunch that debate, but anyone looking at this splendid Chamber and the palatial public spaces of this building would not believe the cramped conditions in which a backbench MEP works. Please do not forget, you important people who have spacious offices – even the secretaries-general of the political groups have office space four times that of a backbench MEP – that when you have an assistant and a stagiaire crammed into one office, you have no place in which to meet visitors. Mr President, will you at least pledge to back us in getting computers for MEPs, preferably flat-screen computers so we can fit them on to our desks in our tiny offices and be more efficient for the 21st century? I am sorry to raise such a brass-tacks issue: I know parliamentarians are always shy about raising the matter of their own working conditions but, frankly, unless we can be efficient in dealing with our work, we cannot deliver good service and present a good showcase to the world. I would not like people to look at the masses of space in the public areas and then come and see our little cramped offices, out of which we lose a third for a useless bathroom – but that is another matter. Please help us to be efficient, Mr President.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this is not a legislative procedure but a consultation procedure, a preliminary phase, and I would point out that Parliament is not acting as a legislative body, but as a representative of European civil society and there is probably no other institution which represents European civil society as faithfully as we do, since we are elected by the citizens. The Commission’s proposals are good ideas. We are at the Green Paper phase, we hope that the Commission will present its proposals soon and, above all, I would like to welcome the fact that the Commission is now taking up one of the main proposals contained in Parliament’s recommendations: recourse to the Regulation, which is the most appropriate procedure for adopting these rules. We cannot leave them in the hands of a Directive, because that would give the national authorities too much leeway and could lead to confusion when it comes to applying the rules. Secondly, I believe there is a very important idea in the Gargani report: the idea of the importance of codification. This idea is reflected in the recent interinstitutional agreement, concluded between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission: as far as possible, as we go on adopting legal rules, we must codify them, so that we do not find later that we have a series of regulations, directives, decisions etc., which bear no relation to each other. We are now beginning to acquire a substantial set of rules on cooperation in the field of private law and the ideal thing would be to be able to bring them together in a codified text, and we could also consider a type of permanent codification, that is, that each new rule should be integrated with others with a view to achieving the greatest possible coherence in the legislative text. This is not of course the time to make recommendations to the Commission on this issue, but there is an opportunity to do so and, therefore, we should try to achieve it and try to have it adopted. In conclusion, I believe that Parliament and the Commission are cooperating well in the initial phase; I believe that the proposals the Commission will make to this Parliament from October will be well received and we will be able to work to the benefit of the citizens so that Community law is as harmonised and coherent as possible, to the benefit, as Mr Bartolozzi said earlier, of small companies and ordinary citizens, who expect more from the European Union than a mere mechanism for international diplomatic cooperation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we in the welcome this initiative from Denmark concerning the penalties which should result from environmental crime. Clearly, there are quite a lot of Member States which have problems imposing effective penalties for this type of crime. In my own country, Sweden, a great many reports of environmental crimes are now being made. It is remarkable, however, how small a proportion of the reports subsequently lead to guilty verdicts. When one looks at the consequences of these judgements, it has to be said that they are fairly light in many cases. I do not think that this is in any way unique to Sweden. These problems certainly exist in a number of Member States, and there are certainly many different reasons for this. One reason may be a lack of knowledge and of resources for investigating environmental crimes through the legal system. At the same time, there is also still an outmoded view that environmental crimes are not as serious as other crimes and that environmental laws are not as binding as other laws. If that is the case, then that is, of course, quite unacceptable. Major financial interests are often at stake. At present, it pays to commit environmental crimes because the risk of having a penalty imposed is so small. What is perhaps most remarkable about this is that there are so few countries which can sue legal persons and hold companies liable. Altering this state of affairs is perhaps the most important change which can be made. Obviously, this is, in the first place, a responsibility of the Member States, and there should be international cooperation in this area. Coordination as a result of this initiative is, of course, also necessary. In addition to the fact that coordination reinforces the work done by the Member States, I would emphasise three other reasons for engaging in this. The first is that many environmental crimes have international consequences, something which many people have emphasised in the course of the debate. The second reason is that, if this Danish initiative is implemented, it will facilitate pan-European environmental cooperation in the Council of Europe and perhaps enable this convention to be complied with. The third reason is that we all know that environmental law is that area of EC law which is least complied with. An initiative like this might also lead to EC law being better observed in the environmental area which is absolutely necessary if we consider how certain directives are followed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, my first question follows on from Mr van den Berg's question in connection with generic medicines. There has been criticism to the effect that, since patent law has not been changed, many of the further details that we expect from this new agreement will, in fact, remain nothing but words to the developing countries. Can you reassure us in this respect? After all, if this is grand but ineffective gesture, then this means precious little in the way of a weapon in the negotiations as a way of offering evidence of good will. My second question concerns the mandate. Do you not agree that the mandate you have is insufficient to equip you for outlining future agricultural policy which, de facto, will make better integration of the developing countries possible, given the fact that a huge chunk of agriculture in the developing world is about survival?

Political group: Verts-ALE
A future of ‘peace and dignity’ in the Middle East requires the two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, to be able to coexist, enjoying the same rights, in particular that of possessing an independent state each. It is that possibility that has been closed off for decades by the State of Israel, which conducts a policy of oppression towards the Palestinian people. In the course of the last few years, this policy has taken the form of state terrorism, as despicable as the individual terrorism it has engendered on the Palestinian side, but using very different methods. Halting Israeli state terrorism in order to stop individual terrorism and abandoning the policy of creating settlements are the prerequisites of any peace process which, as well as conferring democratic rights, will have to guarantee the working classes the opportunity of escaping from poverty. Not only the United States, but also Europe have means of putting pressure on the Israeli leaders who have a vital need for economic, political and military support from the major powers. If they wished to do so, the latter could oblige Israel to abandon its policy of oppression and despoilment. We have voted in favour of the amendments concerning the Geneva Agreement, not specifically because of their contents but out of solidarity with those – Israelis and Palestinians together – who are fighting to bring about an end to a situation that is disastrous for both peoples. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL