GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Commissioner, we are very concerned about the human rights situation and also by the slow progress of democracy in Equatorial Guinea. The trial held last spring, which ended in the conviction of 68 people, showed that there are no legal guarantees that can be backed up internationally, as was clear in the declaration made by this House in June. The trial broke off what was slow but positive progress, which is reprehensible. However, it should not be forgotten that it is not always the best solution to shut off channels of communication with a country that is in deficit when it comes to respecting human rights. We think that we should maintain a critical dialogue, seeking to make gradual progress. We need to strongly condemn abuses, but we should also acknowledge steps forward when they are made, for example, the freeing of 120 people who had been in prison for some time on 12 October in honour of the 34th anniversary of the independence of Guinea. I am of course aware that this is not enough, but we must recognise that it took place. With regard to the slow pace of the democratisation process, it should be criticised that four opposition candidates had to withdraw on the day of the presidential elections due to irregularities in the votes, even though the electoral campaign had run without any serious incidents. Of course we cannot forget that members of significant parties are being detained or are in exile, such as Severo Moto, the president of the banned Progress Party, who is in exile in Madrid. We trust that the next elections, the legislative elections planned in a few months’ time, will be held with more guarantees and freedom. Therefore, in the Resolution being debated today the Guinean Government should be invited to take measures to give credibility to its will to make the system democratic, establishing a serious dialogue with absolutely all of the political movements. At the same time, the political movements should avoid making speeches like those made by the four candidates who withdrew, which could lead to violence. We need to criticise what there is to criticise, but help progress to continue. We cannot therefore support this Resolution, because it is simply a head-on attack on the Guinean Government, which could have counterproductive results and not benefit the people of Guinea or lead towards a democratisation process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, following on from the comment made by my honourable friend on Cyprus, I should like to say that we must not forget that the northern part of Cyprus has been under Turkish occupation as a result of the invasion in 1974. Now to my point: just as official spokesmen are admitting that Iraq's famous weapons of mass destruction were no more than the pretext for the invasion, new threats to world peace are emanating from the metropolis of imperialism. The United States Congress has in fact given its approval for research into so-called mini nuclear weapons and for new nuclear weapons that penetrate the ground, causing ten times as much damage. This development comes just 18 months after the Nuclear Post Review calling for ways to be found so that nuclear weapons can be used within the framework of the new American preventive strike strategy. At the same time, Mr Bush himself is making headlines on the continuing campaign against Cuba, with his well publicised message on 20 May, while the United States of America are jamming the country's radio and television network in order to broadcast their cheap propaganda. As I condemn the foregoing, I wonder what those who directly or indirectly supported and support imperialist aggression have to say. I also wonder to what extent those who called American agents in Cuba human rights activists will articulate even one word in protest against the new escalation of aggression against the island of the revolution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Commission proposal to create a single annual premium is to be welcomed because it will simplify farmer’s incomes and provide stability. Nevertheless, it contains various loopholes and shortcomings. The first is the unsatisfactory level of the proposed premium of EUR 21, which continues to reflect the discrimination against the small ruminants sector in favour of large ruminants. The proposal of EUR 30 that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development approved will, therefore, resolve this discrimination. Nevertheless, if this proposal does not have the support of the majority of this House, I will, of course, support any other level that contributes to this objective. The second shortcoming lies in the continuing discrimination between sheep bred for meat on the one hand and ewes and she-goats on the other, with the latter receiving only 80% of the premium given to meat sheep. The proposals approved by the Committee on Agriculture will also remedy this unfairness, by making all premiums the same. The third shortcoming concerns the non-inclusion of flexibility mechanisms that would enable the Member States to make adjustments to national and regional situations. In this sense, the Committee on Agriculture’s amendments, which are intended to create an additional premium in certain situations, will be of enormous benefit to the implementation of the COM and will make the scheme more realistic and more feasible. As the Commission itself acknowledges in the explanatory statement, sheep and goat breeders have the lowest incomes of all meat producers with the additional disadvantage that 80% of the animals eligible for premiums are located in parts of the European Union that are both remote and poor. For this reason, and also because there is a deficit in this sector, which can only meet 80% of domestic consumption, it is becoming very important to make the changes I have just outlined and to increase the supplementary premium for Objective 1 regions. I therefore hope, that the House approves the Commission proposal and that when the Ministers for Agriculture meet in Council, they do their job properly, and accept the positions of this House. Lastly, I wish to pay tribute to Mr Adam, who has been an excellent rapporteur, who has put in a great deal of hard work and whom I thank for his generous support.

Political group: PPE-DE
For quite a few years, the common sector in the Member States has been the victim of major cutbacks. In that context, it is depressing to see that the EU’s budget contains an incredibly large amount of unused resources and that there is a complete waste of money in certain cases. There is a great deal of the EU’s expenditure budget that we wish wholly or partially to abolish, such as agricultural subsidies, subsidies for the export of live animals to third countries, the greater part of regional aid, subsidies for tobacco cultivation and the running of the Economic and Social Committee and subsidies for European political parties, federalist EU organisations and the dissemination of EU/EMU propaganda. This list of what we think are downright objectionable items of expenditure in the EU can be extended still further. Another detail we have insisted on every year is that travel expenses for Members of the European Parliament should only be reimbursed in the case of actual costs that have arisen in connection with travel on EU business. It is quite incredible that this issue can never be resolved, in spite of the fact that so many people purport to stand up for this principle. The public funds spent by the EU can be better used in the Member States. We believe that the Member States’ contributions to the European Union can be reduced.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Freedom of movement and residence is a right enshrined in European treaties and granted to all citizens and should only be denied in exceptional cases when there is a real threat to public safety. It is therefore all the more extraordinary that 50 years after the signing of the Convention of Human Rights, which ironically was signed in Rome, and one year after the Treaty of Amsterdam upholding such rights, that one European family, which for a thousand years has been involved with the continent's history, is being denied the fundamental rights my colleague has mentioned. The Watson report demands such rights for family reunion and the Boumediene-Thiery report for freedom of movement and residence, even for third-country nationals and even for convicted criminals. This family, as mentioned, is the former royal house of Savoy in Italy and lesser violations are also being committed against the royal houses of Austria and Greece by their governments. The thirteenth transitional article of the Italian Constitution, absurdly labelled 'transitional' but still in force after 53 years, is not only a violation of European treaties, but also sexually discriminatory in that it applies only to male royal descendants, no matter how far removed, of the constitutional monarch King Victor Emanuel, deemed guilty of signing unacceptable wartime fascist laws. Ironically, descendants of Mussolini are not only allowed to live in Italy but one actually sits in the Italian Parliament. This article is shameful and obsolete and all Members of Parliament, even those with anti-monarchist feelings, should join me in calling upon the Italian government to allow an innocent European family to return to their native land, where it poses no conceivable threat to public safety or the stability of the Italian Republic. We can only call for European citizens to have more rights if all their rights are upheld irrespective of origin and without discrimination. This issue goes far beyond individual families and goes right to the heart of the Union's respect for its own laws and treaties. Either we have a European Union based on law or we do not. I therefore commend my Amendment No 14 to this House. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commissioner said that he could not address the principle of relative stability because it is part of the CFP. CFP reform, which we should embark on today and in the next few days, is based precisely on the principle of relative stability, which is not unchangeable. On the other hand, the Commissioner said that another amendment was to maintain the status quo. The status quo in Community waters is maintained by the Commission and Mr Fischler, Mr President.

Political group: Verts-ALE
As I do not favour any particular form of words or omission over another, I welcome the approval of this resolution, as in general terms its central goal is international nuclear disarmament, and it calls on all countries with nuclear weapons to commit themselves to reducing and eliminating them. This is especially relevant, given the international situation, which is marked by growing militarism and military interventionism led by the United States – you only have to look at the attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, the decision by the US administration to develop new generations of nuclear arms which are ‘deployable’ in military operations and the increase in the US ‘defence’ budget – accompanied by a number of EU countries which are further developing cooperation projects in the defence industry: Germany, France and the United Kingdom. We ought to go further, not just limiting ourselves to non-proliferation but moving on to true disarmament, which is opposed by political, economic and military interests and forces that not only try to ignore the interests and the general sentiments of the public but also, and not always openly, try to resist the practical effect of resolutions on non-proliferation. For this reason it was particularly important that the amendment tabled by my group on the establishment of a nuclear freeze zone in the Middle East was adopted – by just one vote! - Report: Wallis (A5-0048/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, further to your reference to Guantanamo Bay, I should like to inform the House that a group of Christian Liberation Movement activists has been rounded up, harassed and attacked in Santiago, the capital of Cuba. I expect you are aware that the president of this movement is none other than Oswaldo Payá, the winner of the 2002 Sakharov prize. Mr Payá has issued a statement detailing the events and calling on all governments and institutions to bring pressure to bear to ensure that these peaceful activists who belong to his movement survive unharmed. I would therefore urge you to take up the case of these people, Mr President.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, should you not be asking us to vote for the text? You are changing the vote around and reversing it. A 'yes' vote should be for keeping the text and a 'no' vote should be against the text surely? The last time you did this it was rather confusing.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to add a sentence which takes account of the more recent developments in the media sector, a sector which governments try to control and where they try to put pressure on the press. The sentence would read: 'However, insists on the need to further monitor the situation in the media sector so that its independence and pluralism are fully preserved, enabling Poland to satisfy the criteria prevailing in Member States'. The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment. Before the vote on Amendment No 29:

Political group: PPE-DE
For a long time now, the use of cars for transporting people and goods has been such a matter of course that we have given little thought to the effect this has had on many people and the environment. We only saw the economic gain and how convenient it was for the car driver, not the drawbacks. Exhaust fumes and the lack of traffic safety were accepted as part of the deal, as well as the noise cars generate. Fortunately, over the past few years, this attitude has started to change. Many cities give bicycles and trains more space and restrict the freedom of cars. This does not end the problems caused by cars and lorries. The number of cars is still on the increase, as is the proportion of freight transport by road, and with it, noise pollution. Looking at it through the eyes of the car industry, it is evident that manufacturers will pass the buck. They will look to the road owner – in general the Government – to increase safety and to reduce environmental pollution. As long as the car industry succeeds in doing this, they, themselves, do not have to look into reducing pollution caused by cars, or incur any additional costs as a result. In their opinion, noise pollution should be countered by using ‘very open asphalt concrete’, a road surface which, however, can turn unexpectedly slippery overnight when frosty. What matters now is that a choice should be made between the interests of the car and the car-tyre industries on the one hand, and the interests of the public and the environment on the other. Far too often, we see that the short-term interests of powerful industrial groups are given priority, whilst the majority of our electorate increasingly sets different requirements for political decision-making. Protecting the quality of our life, rather than making a fast buck, is gaining in importance all the time. This contrast was highlighted once again during the debate on car tyres. Mr De Roo was right in demonstrating that the regulation proposed by the Commission will not sufficiently improve matters, and that it is technically possible to reduce pollution by a few decibels. This simply requires the political will to put sufficient regulations in place, to monitor compliance with the regulations and not to allow too much leeway. The Group of the has constantly backed Mr De Roo in this. We regret that his reasonable and self-evident proposals cannot count on the general approval they deserve.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the seven-point plan was proposed, as we are all aware, in response to serious concerns about falling consumer confidence in beef and the resulting pressure on the intervention ceiling. We understand that these concerns have abated somewhat in recent weeks and that consumption forecasts have now improved significantly. If the Commission still believes that emergency measures should be introduced to inhibit over-supply in the beef and veal sector then these changes should not jeopardise the long-term future of the quality, grass-fed beef sector. For this reason we would oppose any alteration to the existing rules for suckler cow premia and beef special premia. Attention should instead – in our view – be focused on the removal of surplus calves from the system. Whilst respecting the aims of Agenda 2000 we would therefore seek renewed justification from the Commission of the need for such radical proposals and would call for the re-evaluation of these measures.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Council and the Commission for having responded to comments that the rapporteur has not even made yet. As you are in charge of the sitting, I would like to remind you of the following, which is to be found in Rule 120(5) of our Rules of Procedure: 'In a debate on a report, the Commission and the Council shall, as a rule, be given the floor immediately after the rapporteur's explanation.' It must surely be clear to you that, whilst the Council is allowed an explanation, it is the report that is on the agenda. I do not believe that this is a right or careful way to handle the work of committees in the plenary. Thank you very much! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
We welcome and support the report, which touches on many important trends in the development of the common foreign and security policy. However, we cannot support the tasks performed by the High Representative being transferred to the Commission. Nor can we support the conversion of the Community’s delegations into EU embassies. The Member States have responsibility for foreign diplomacy. We feel that the conversion of the Commission’s delegations into Community delegations risks leading to conflicts of interest with the national diplomatic delegations of the Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, we in Sweden are relatively new to the EU, and I am new to this House. It is my understanding that we Swedes still have a lot to learn within the field of European cooperation. At the same time, it is my conviction that there is also a great deal for the EU to learn from how we handle some things in Sweden, for example the issues of openness and public access to official records. When it comes to the report on the European Central Bank, there is every reason to wonder whether we should not be able to do more to increase openness within the European Central Bank and public control of its affairs, to strengthen the Bank’s legitimacy and to increase democratic support for it. We Liberals believe that this is needed, and without, moreover, encroaching upon the Bank’s independence or reducing its efficiency. The Bank of Sweden now reports, with two weeks’ delay, upon the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors. Monetary considerations, together with the positions adopted by the various Board Members, are reported on at this time. Last week, Swedes learned that the Deputy Chief Executive of the Bank of Sweden, together with a further Member of the Board, did not back the Bank’s latest report on inflation. They advocated a rise in interest rates but were voted down. Similar openness would be to the advantage of the European Central Bank too. Why? Well, openness leads to clarity, which reduces uneasiness in the market and makes for stability. However, Mr Duisenberg and I are clearly not properly in agreement about this argument. Openness would increase our citizens’ support for the Bank and make it easier for everyone to understand the goal of monetary policy: that price stability, just as Mr Duisenberg said, should lead to growth and employment. In my opinion, being open about strategies and prognoses, internal discussions and methods of voting will also actually increase Board Members’ accountability, not reduce it. It is actually a good thing to be open to public scrutiny. I want to say too that we have today been able to see that support for EMU in Sweden has increased, which I am glad about. I should like to tell Mr Duisenberg that support for EMU and the likelihood of taking Sweden into EMU will increase if he and the European Central Bank display greater openness.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I will do my best to be serious in today’s explanations of vote. The first concerns Mr Florenz’ report on the directive on the differentiated collection of waste electrical and electronic equipment. I voted for the motion today and I was in favour of this report when I voted for it in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy too. I believe it is extremely important for the European Parliament to promote the improvement of our environment. In particular, I would like pensioners to be employed in the activities of waste electrical and electronic equipment collection. They will feel less like discarded waste than they are sometimes made to feel.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, speaking both for myself and, of course, on behalf of the Group of the , I wish to concur with your demand that the second report of the Wise Men be made available to all MEPs before 30 August, i.e. before the hearings with the new Commission begin. However, I have learnt from an extremely well-informed source that a kind of preliminary draft report is already in circulation in this House, between the Committee of Wise Men, the services of the European Parliament and the services of the European Commission. We know what happens with preliminary draft reports: they are leaked, they get into the newspapers. I think we are all entitled to demand that when such a preliminary draft is in circulation, it be made available to the MEPs. I know it probably is not possible for it to go to all 626 Members, but would it not then be sensible, if such a report exists and if you can confirm this, for this preliminary draft report to be given to the President and the bureau of the Committee on Budgetary Control for example, and to the co-ordinators of all the groups that are represented in the Committee on Budgetary Control.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank all the Members who have helped me over the last year and a half with the work on the Sixth Framework Programme on research. I would point out that the FP6, with a budget of EUR 17.5 billion, is Europe’s third largest policy. My thanks go to Commissioner Busquin and to Mr Marimón Suñol, both of whom just reiterated that we reached agreements thanks to the 34 compromise amendments which were adopted on Monday evening by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. As rapporteur, I of course urge my fellow Members to adopt these amendments and these amendments alone which will mean that, today at midday, we will be on the verge of finalising our Sixth Framework Programme and that it can be applied in the best possible conditions as of 1 January 2003. Thank you all! (The President declared the common position approved, as amended) *** Report (A5-0129/2002) by Horst Schnellhardt, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs (COM(2000) 438 – C5-0376/2000 – 2000/0178(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

Political group: PSE