GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Venezuela is currently suffering a crisis which is leading to a social polarisation with unpredictable consequences, and has cost the lives of a number of people. This Parliament’s position, during the long Venezuelan crisis, has clearly expressed the need to find a peaceful solution, a solution through dialogue, a constitutional solution and a solution achieved through essentially electoral means. This solution was enshrined in an agreement between representatives of the government and of the Democratic Coordinator by means of a recall referendum, which is the constitutional mechanism laid down in Venezuela’s Magna Carta, which allows the popular support for the President of the Republic to be revalidated. The recent decision of the National Electoral Council not to validate a significant number of signatures collected in order to call the referendum does not, in our opinion, respect either the spirit or the letter of those agreements and has been the catalyst for the recent events in that country. We believe it is clear, Mr President, that citizens cannot be deprived of exercising their legitimate rights and that the National Electoral Council is obliged to facilitate and guarantee the exercise of the popular will. This Parliament, therefore, by means of this compromise Resolution, signed by three political groups, must call firstly for calm and moderation. It must call on the government to guarantee the rights of all citizens, including the right to peaceful demonstration. It calls on the National Electoral Council to accept and adopt without delay the recommendations of the mission of the Carter Centre and of the mission of the Organisation of American States. It reiterates its support for the agreements reached between the government and the Democratic Coordinator. It expresses its concern at the failure to comply with them and calls on the government to guarantee their implementation as soon as possible. Mr President, it is also necessary to call for a redoubling of the European Union's efforts, with the aim of ensuring that these agreements between the government and the Democratic Coordinator are complied with. I believe that the most desirable thing, as a result of these agreements, would be for a recall referendum to take place soon, which is the European Union's desire, expressed by means of various statements by the Council of Ministers of the European Union on the initiative of the Commission, and for a mission of European Union electoral observers to be appointed to accompany this process of ratifying and holding the recall referendum, which is the institutionally established mechanism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the starting point for this debate was the US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. So I welcome the strong language in our compromise resolution on this. But we need more than words. We want the Commission to look at possible EU actions in response to a continued US refusal to respond to climate change, including action at the WTO, on the grounds that by not internalising its external energy costs, US goods are receiving an unfair government subsidy, which is against the rules of world trade. But it is not just Kyoto. Let us look as well at this intent to tear up the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. This 'Son of Star Wars' system threatens a massive new arms race. Asking the US to consult before proceeding is not enough. We need to state very clearly that the EU calls on the US to give up this initiative and pledges itself and its Member States not to take part in this project on any level. If the US spent just a fraction of the resources it currently spends on missile defence on defending itself against climate change instead, the world would be a much safer place.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I do not know the extent of this tragedy, but if children are dead, I would perhaps suggest to the House that we observe a minute’s silence.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The example which Mr Bolkestein quoted a moment ago is, of course, a blatant, and probably exceptional, example of the abuses in the transport sector. It is not the only example. We have witnessed various such examples over the past few years, almost on the same scale as the example we heard about a moment ago. In addition to the many abuses on a large scale, there are also many abuses on a small scale, for the transport sector is largely characterised by abuses. The system before us, involving stricter standards for working hours – indeed, not only driving hours are referred to, but also working hours – involves a tightening-up on the system used in the past. This can only work if the monitoring procedure is improved. If this does not happen – and I agree with what Mr Hughes has said – all these standards will be meaningless. Although monitoring is a national competence, a two-yearly report on the results of the monitoring procedure, which is to be submitted to the Commission, must still be drawn up. I would like to ask the Commission to give its attention to this report once more and to reconsider the requirements made of the Member States in this connection. One of the aspects which the Commission is apparently verifying is whether foreign hauliers are subject to stricter monitoring than domestic hauliers, the latter being of one’s own nationality. Needless to say, this should not be used as a criterion. The Commission is right to investigate this, but it should widen the investigation as long as hauliers allow people to drive for too long at excessive speeds, because they are often required to arrive at their destination at a certain time. Commissioner – and I am aware that this is not within your competence – as long as the Member States apply different speed limits, this is all useless. The speed limit is 90 km/hour in one Member State, 100 km/hour in another and 80 km/hour in the next. Surely, the way in which transport in Europe is organised is sheer madness. This should all be improved. In addition to monitoring, there is also the problem of penalties, which differ from one Member State to another. Actually, in the field of penalties, minimum standards should exist. I know that, at present, this is not a European competence, but this should change. Finally, as long as hauliers’ and truckers’ tachographs have to be inspected, cheating will always take place, because the tachograph is an instrument which ideally lends itself to this. It is therefore high time that the regulation we are waiting for were issued, stipulating that, in future, digital boxes must be fitted in cabs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a Pan-European it has been my privilege to work towards this great day since the 1970s. Otto von Habsburg was here today, he has been mentioned several times and I was able to accompany him all along the way. I celebrate this day, which is a great day for me. As the son of a Bohemian family, I am also glad that a member has spoken Czech here for the first time today, my friend Daniel Kroupa. He is in the tradition of that great social democrat Jiri Pelikan, who was here as a Czech in exile following the first direct elections of Members of the European Parliament. There have also, however, always been members of Bohemia’s second ethnic group here, the Sudeten Germans. I am thinking of Volkmar Gabert and Egon Klepsch. I, too, am part of that tradition; we have always seen ourselves as Bohemia’s ambassadors here. The Pan-European idea originated in Bohemia 80 years ago; Bohemia is the heart of Europe. That is why I regret the fact that, at the start of this year, there was suddenly talk in Prague of defending the post-war order. We do not need a post-war order in Europe. We do not need a wartime or pre-war order either; what we want to build at the start of the twenty-first century is a new, equitable order of nations, built on reconciliation, on healing of the wounds we have inflicted on one another, on justice, on mutual respect and mutual recognition. I therefore call on the Czech authorities to cast unjust decrees like the Beneš decrees on the scrap heap of history where they belong. Let us join together in building a new Europe where the peoples live together as equals, where ethnic groups and minorities are protected, where the European cultural diversity that was expressed so impressively in the speeches here this morning is respected. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I feel I should raise a point of order in relation to what the Commissioner has just said. He referred to a number of texts on the definition of privacy and he referred to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the protection of privacy and family life. As the rapporteur on the Regulation on Access to Documents, I feel it only right to point out that in the judgment of 16 February 2000, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed its earlier case law, that it is data relating to the private life of an individual that falls within the scope of Article 8. The preamble to the Data Protection Convention and recitals to the Data Protection Directive also make clear that their purpose is to protect the fundamental right of privacy, not to restrict the information available to citizens about public activities. If the Commission pursues the line indicated tonight, it is on a collision course with Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Overfishing in European waters has led to scientists now proposing a total ban on cod fishing and strict limits for other species of fish such as plaice. Up to now, scientists’ warnings have fallen on deaf ears at the December annual meetings of the 15 Fisheries Ministers. As a result, we are threatened with the same situation as happened ten years ago off the coast of Canada (Newfoundland). Those waters were fished down to the very last cod, and, even ten years later, there are still no cod to be found. The fishing communities in eastern Canada did not survive that. The EU has been trying for years to reduce the fleet capacity of European fishermen. That reduction has not taken place in practice, however. Europe’s overfishing problems are being shifted on to the rest of the world in that increasing numbers of European fishermen are depleting fish stocks in the waters of other continents. It all began in Ireland a couple of years ago, when a supertrawler, the Atlantic Dawn, had to be decommissioned. Instead, this supertrawler is now sailing under the Panamanian flag for exactly the same Irish firm in the waters of the Developing World. There are now as many as three supertrawlers that have not been decommissioned by the Netherlands; these vessels are now depleting fish stocks in the waters off the West African coast, under the Dutch flag. Thousands of small-scale African fishermen are missing out, and shortly yields off the West African coast will also decrease. The response of the Dutch Government will then probably be to send these supertrawlers even further away. Scientists’ warnings of worldwide overfishing are not being taken seriously: not by the Dutch Government and not by the European Commission. A year ago, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (September 2002), the Dutch and European authorities hypocritically signed declarations that there must be an end to worldwide overfishing by 2010, but in reality the Dutch and European authorities are shifting the problems caused by overfishing in European waters on to the countries of the Developing World. Fishing the world’s oceans dry with our heads in the sand: I can think of no other way of summing it up.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in view of the emotional debate we had about tobacco earlier this week, we should now take the necessary steps towards implementing the drugs policy in the Union more effectively. We must make the fight against drugs an absolute priority. Last week, I was confronted on my home territory with the fact that a study conducted at the weekend revealed that one in three young people use drugs. This is staggering news. Therefore, policy-makers at every level should be far more attentive to the situation. The role of the European Union is first and foremost to bring about harmonisation. We need to develop new initiatives to this end without delay, the hallmark of which must be decisiveness and vigour. We must not be content with paper exercises. What I find difficult about this report is that the Commission is required to submit a report on the setting up of the Monitoring Centre, as well as on any adjustment or extension of the tasks only every three years. This is far too long a period to my mind. We must be able to make adjustments on a continuous basis. If you want to achieve something your goals need to be more short-term. The drugs policy will only be effective if the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is accorded a fundamental role. It is certainly not enough for the Monitoring Centre to act purely as a database, and I am only too pleased to support the rapporteur when he says that under no circumstances must the Community decision-makers be allowed to limit the mission of the Monitoring Centre to such an extent that it becomes a data bank with no critical dimension whatsoever.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we can only express our satisfaction at the conclusion of a new fishing protocol with a third country, with which we already enjoy a long history of working together. This protocol guarantees three things of enormous importance: the continuation of the supply of fish and Community employment; the safeguard which is always offered to a fishing region by the presence of fleets which, like the European fleet, are subject to regulations and responsibilities in relation to the control and management of activities, and, naturally, the Community contributions to improving the local fishing sector, contributions which are specifically laid out here. I therefore ask that you support the three amendments which have been presented by the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries. However, we do not feel able to vote in favour of Amendment No 4, which insists that the whole cost of the agreement be financed by the shipowners. Although this is a traditional demand by a political group in this House which has always been rejected, to propose it when another more than controversial protocol has just been concluded, in which the shipowners involved not only do not pay the 25% which is paid in this case, but pay absolutely nothing, is particularly offensive. Furthermore, in view of the agreements concluded with the countries of the North, it is incomprehensible to read in the explanatory statement that there is a lack of transparency in the agreement with Equatorial Guinea. To begin with, in this protocol, all the items, including those on cooperation with local fishing, are not only itemised, but are set out to the last penny, something which does not happen in other agreements, where any differentiation between what is financial compensation and what is development aid is non-existent. We must put an end then to attempts to create more obstacles for certain agreements, which, compared to others, are exemplary in terms of transparency and details, something which the Council agrees with, having called for greater equality of treatment since 1997. While we are on the subject of agreements, I would like to end by mentioning the Commission’s working programme for this year, whose timetable for the renewal of protocols is incomprehensible. By way of example, the negotiation with Cape Verde, which has been pending since November of last year, does not even appear in the Commission’s timetable. And in the majority of cases, the mandates for negotiation that have been planned are contingent on the agreement being concluded, as in the flagrant example of Gabon, an agreement which expires on 30 March and whose mandate for negotiation is planned for the fourth quarter of the year. Commissioner, I am sorry to say that the least the Commission can do is keep its agenda up to date. Anything less is shameful.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as you all know, I was the original rapporteur for this report. The document was totally destroyed in the Committee on Fisheries and I felt compelled to give up the task of drafting the report, which was given to the Committee’s Chairman, Struan Stevenson. I know I am in a minority, but I must say that the main reason for my attitude is that the report we have just adopted ignores the main issue. By this I mean that the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002 is purely and simply a result of the fact that the transitional period of 16 years granted to the Spanish State and to Portugal, so that they need no longer be intruders in Community waters and have the same rights as the other Member States, has come to an end. I cannot, of course, accept this situation. I am also, of course, in favour of the conservation of stocks – I have nothing against this, in fact – but the report and the committee have not given due consideration to the economic and social consequences of the reform. Nor do they discuss a budget for a reform of such importance, but uphold the principle of relative stability, which is now discriminatory and grants privileges, because it was established when the EU had only six or nine Members. Furthermore, the report heaps scorn on international fisheries. I therefore dare say that there will soon need to be a new real reform of the CFP, to ensure that it is a genuinely common policy. It is now less of a common policy than it used to be!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Europe must become a political Union too, and not just an economic one. For this reason the Italian Communists offer and propose very fast enlargement to the candidate countries in order to build a great Europe based on its cultures and its best democratic traditions. In this context, once all opposition between the countries of Western Europe and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe has been left behind, the military organisation of NATO will also be left behind – in fact it will then be completely anachronistic – in favour of a European military force wholly independent of the United States, with which Europe must maintain close, friendly, but no longer subordinate relations. The European military force should be totally European, democratically controlled by parliamentary resolutions, effective and efficient. If such a military force had existed, through the history and traditions of the peoples that compose it, NATO’s war against Yugoslavia would not have happened. That is why we voted for the Lalumière report, but with many reservations and objections concerning the aggressive tone found in some parts of the resolution which, in any case, we shall fight to avoid.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have voted in support of this report welcoming the extension of the European Maritime Safety Agency's powers to maritime security and seafarers' qualifications. Parliament is perfectly correct to emphasise the need to make maritime transport safer, better protect the marine environment and enhance shipping security. In the wake of the Prestige disaster and the many other catastrophes we have witnessed we can all agree that maritime transport must be made a lot safer and there must be far better coordination of actions in all Member States. A properly resourced European Maritime Safety Agency would enable such coordination with due respect for the need to safeguard the subsidiarity principle in recognition that primary responsibility must lie with coastal Member States. I also fully support the proposal that the European Maritime Safety Agency should be involved in recognition of certificates of competency for seafarers and hope that the Agency will prioritise this particular area with a view to ensuring greater safety for workers and citizens. It is however my view that EMSA should not be given responsibilities for combating terrorism: these must continue to be the responsibility of the Member States, and I welcome the clarifications contained in the report in this regard.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ‘Argos did inspire him in his search for the Other’, to quote Péguy on Homer. I would refer the detractors of the Morillon report to this. The Morillon report is not a pipedream. It is without doubt the most interesting and best-devised document on the subject I have been given to read for several years. I would like to explain why I am so pleased with this report. I see merit both in its ambitious objectives and in its realistic pathway. Others have explained that the timing of this report is opportune. Previous speakers have also highlighted its comprehensive nature. I would like to point to its sense of perspective and its excellent account of the institutional tools that need to be taken into account. I would also like to underline the very creative way in which it uses the notion of enhanced cooperation. It applies this to defence in a realistic and pragmatic way with the aim of establishing a genuine Community defence structure. In some ways, this report is a step-by-step guide to building a European defence architecture capable of adjusting to meet present and future challenges, especially terrorism. Madam President, too often we say that Generals prepare for yesterday’s wars. I do not want the future to herald more wars but we know that there will be many more conflicts. One particular General has urged us to prepare for current and future conflicts. He deserves our thanks.

Political group: ELDR
The overwhelming message of this report is that the European Commission has neglected the fish processing sector. The sector is confronted with the impact of a whole host of EU legislation, from CFP management measures to hygiene and food safety, to the environment, and yet it is all too often ignored. The waste water directive is a prime example where the concerns of the processing sector were overlooked. I am therefore pleased that the Committee endorsed my amendments which emphasised that the impact of legislation should be fully assessed, and specifically, that the Commission should provide support for the development for water recycling systems, such as the one recently established by a processor in my own area in the north-east of Scotland. Greater attention needs to be paid to structural support. Processors have been hard hit by CFP management measures, from quota cuts to decommissioning, but received little or no assistance. Structural support should be positive, not just reacting to management measures, but being proactive in supporting the sector, promoting new technologies and encouraging effective marketing.

Political group: Verts-ALE