GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Well done Mother Europe! Thank you Mother Europe for taking care of your children! Or should I say, rather, thank you Father Byrne! Thank you because all the safety directives aim to preserve the well-being of our European citizens, from minors, from children right up to the elderly. This is certainly positive. However, I do recall a substantial discussion which I had with my daughter, Elisabetta, when she was nine years old and wanted to be allowed to go out on her own. I told her that she could not go out unaccompanied because it was dangerous. Then, some years later, when I allowed my second daughter, who is six or seven years younger, to go out on her own, Elisabetta protested: 'But Daddy, you never let me go out on my own and here you are, letting my sister out alone, and she is younger than I was!' In effect, a good father must indeed take into account the safety of his children, but he must also realise that they cannot be wrapped in cotton wool. They have to learn to be independent. What is the point of all this? The point is that all the safety directives must be balanced. A balance must be achieved. We must indeed be safe but we must not stifle production, in this case, which has to be free. Most importantly – and here I am addressing the Council representative – how can any safety directives be effectively implemented if the Council refuses to endorse the directive on safety inspections and controls? The outcome will be the same as in the mad cow affair: thousands of safety measures leading, regrettably, to the slaughter of millions of animals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first of all like to warmly congratulate Commissioner Verheugen. In Germany, there is a ‘Chancellor of Unity’ and now also a ‘Commissioner for the Unification of Europe’. My sincere congratulations on this. I am particularly glad that, in your report, you have quite clearly given priority to the political criteria in respect of Turkey. This is an important point. It is evident that the progress made is significant to the Turkish public. I think we should note this with a sense of gratitude. Secondly, I have to conclude from your report that you are fairly disappointed with what has actually happened. So am I, to say the least. I thought that more would have been done than has actually been the case, especially with regards to the position of the army; this at any rate, is evident from your report. These are matters with major implications. Your optimism concerning the ten countries that will be joining the EU on 1 May relates to minor aspects that can still be ironed out. I think that the big step towards the democratic constitutional state – which still has to be taken in practice – is of such a scale that we can hardly expect this to be completed in a year from now. Correct me if I am wrong, Commissioner, but is the date of December 2004 either the date on which we will no longer take our political community of values as such seriously, or as the date on which the guillotine comes down on Turkey's membership? In that sense, I think that this date is causing us increasing anxiety. Would it therefore not be preferable, in respect of Turkey, if we were to focus on programme-based progress, or guidance, on the road to a democratic constitutional state?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too, like Mr Kirkhope who took the floor a few moments ago, used to be a public prosecutor, but I reached and have again reached diametrically opposed conclusions. I call on those who truly believe in European integration to be consistent and to support the plan for a stronger European Union, that is, which can avail itself of all the necessary means in order to exert real influence on the scourge of fraud prejudicial to the Union’s financial interests, since until now, these interests have not been adequately protected by the Member States with their laws. It is a fact that each year the amount of fraud prejudicial to Community budgets – that is, in the final analysis, prejudicial to European taxpayers – amounts to approximately EUR one billion, as rightly stated by the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Theato – who has all my admiration and respect – and all the studies agree in saying that this phenomenon is set to steadily increase. This is why the existing legal instruments to combat fraud such as the conventions and protocols ratified by the Member States, the cumbersome nature of actually putting into practice mutual assistance in criminal matters, the nature of OLAF which, under its mandate, has to restrict itself to mere administrative checks and, above all, the fragmentation of the European criminal law-enforcement area are totally insufficient to effectively fight this phenomenon, and the excuses which have been proffered until now do not convince me that we should abandon the European Public Prosecutor either. The mere decision in principle is, however, not sufficient: if we really are in favour of establishing a European Public Prosecutor, we must be consistent in also providing him with the effective means to operate. We must therefore define with the greatest precision, at Community level, the crimes and penalties stipulated for criminal acts and moreover, draw up common provisions in the field of European Union criminal law and criminal procedural law. Consequently, I also believe, as the rapporteur Mrs Theato says, that in observing the separation of powers, the European Public Prosecutor and the deputy European prosecutors must be independent and carry out their mandate on the basis of the principle of mandatory prosecution. Furthermore, it will be necessary to subject the European Public Prosecutor’s actions to judicial review, both with regard to investigations and to committals for trial. In conclusion, honest citizens of the Union can only welcome the creation of an instrument which fights dishonest people at all times and in all areas.

Political group: ELDR
Very briefly, since the debate we should have had has not taken place on this occasion, I would like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur on his work. This is essentially a highly technical report, which will no doubt be ignored by the press, but it is of enormous importance in terms of the good functioning of the European budget in the future. The rapporteur’s work has preserved the rights of Parliament and prevented certain retrograde steps initially proposed by the Council. I congratulate you once again.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the heated debate on the matter of the quorum I did not get a chance to speak before about my motion for the Rules of Procedure. Yesterday, there was a question from Mr MacCormick on the postponement of the vote on the COM for bananas. I share the concerns of Mr MacCormick. We requested the postponement so that we could remain involved as a Parliament in the communication process with the United States within the WTO. Had we voted in accordance with our Rules of Procedure, we would no longer have been involved. That is how it was, Mr MacCormick – he is no longer here. I would like this to be recorded. It is to do with the fact that we as a Parliament no longer have the right to codecision in the agricultural sector and so we had to choose this path.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Chairman of the Committee on Citizen's Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Madam President, the committee which I have the honour to chair is very much aware of the importance of this matter and the urgency of its adoption before 25 March 2001, to allow the Nordic Union to be fully involved. We would have preferred to have been informed of this earlier by the Council. They have brought it to us at the very last moment. Nonetheless, in the circumstances it is our view that we would not wish to delay the vote on this, and we consider it best to treat this as a matter without report; we would therefore suggest that it be put straight to the vote in this part-session.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my group is keen on removing unnecessary border restrictions in railway traffic. Moreover, from the point of view of the environment, space occupation, safety and working conditions, we would like to see a great deal of freight, which is currently being transported by road, transferred to rail. This removal can best be achieved by reaching sound agreements among the EU Member States. This is why we consented to the agreements made by the Council in December 1999 at the end of the Finnish Presidency. These agreements provided for through trans-national corridors and for sufficient exemption and transitional provisions in order to lift possible drawbacks in good time. Unfortunately, the majority of Parliament believed that this arrangement was inadequate and that instead, liberalisation and privatisation should be brought more to the fore. This opinion fits in with a fashion trend which has led to a neo-liberal stampede against public services, public companies and organised employees, especially in the sectors of postal services, rail and energy supply. Those were companies that could prove to us that we can organise our economy in a more democratic, environmentally-friendly and less profit-orientated manner, but that are now being forced to attend to the pursuit of profit and competition. Advocates of liberalisation consider rail as an awkward state monopoly with irritating and demanding trade unions. But the alternative could lead to chaos and conflict of interests and to new monopolies without any democratic control. Liberalisation could, of course, benefit private companies that can gain more freedom and more opportunities to tap into fresh income, but that does not guarantee a choice in favour of more environmentally-friendly modes of transport. Considerable disadvantages could arise, on the other hand, within existing railway companies, for their staff and for the democratic decision-taking with regard to their future transport policy. Consequently, in this case my group was more on the side of the Council than the majority of this Parliament. Therefore, if it had been up to my group, this conciliation would not have taken place. Despite this, I took part in it, taking the view that irreconcilable positions would block a positive outcome, and that it is also not a good idea for the Finnish compromise to be withdrawn. Although I have voted against the direction previously opted for by Parliament on 22 November, I called on the parliamentary delegation to reach a compromise. When that was achieved, I abstained from voting out of regard for this procedure, just as the majority of my group will do tomorrow at the final vote. The outcome of this conciliation will lead to more liberalisation than we deem useful, but less than threatened to be the case initially. Moreover, I fear that this conciliation package will soon be overtaken by liberalisation plans from the European Commission which go even further, and which my group will be unable to endorse.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I, too, should like to thank Mrs Jensen for a brilliant report. It is a good day today, for today’s vote should show that we are now all endorsing the fact that employment policy is not just something made behind desks at meetings of the Council of Ministers, but is something that must be rolled out among the people. Information must be provided about it, and the local authorities that are to help set these things in motion must also be involved. That is what we are voting on today. There are many good things in Mrs Jensen’s report. I would emphasise what we have agreed concerning the local dimension of employment policy. Gradually, we have got the Commission and the Council to realise that local and regional authorities, the social partners and non-profit organisations are important in the context of employment initiatives. Practical work aimed at getting people into employment is done locally. That is why room must be made for local players. However, support for local initiatives is required, for example, in the form of better information about what the common European employment policy is and what the objectives are. That is why it is important for us to put incentive measures in place and for us to appropriate some money to enable us to learn from each other’s methods and experiences. That, moreover, is what we are trying to do here today. That is why it is also disappointing that it has been difficult to get the Commission to agree to increasing the budget so that we might appropriate this money, and that is why we, in the Group of the , have naturally endorsed the need to increase the amount to EUR 55 million, and not EUR 50 million. I hope that we obtain broad support today and that the Commission and the Council are alert to the signal from Parliament today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted for Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou’s report. It concerns the Social Fund, which, as we know, is a fund dedicated to workers and to improving and enhancing the chances of the unemployed of finding work. In particular, this document regulates the definition of innovative measures, that is the new initiatives in this sector. I would like to take the opportunity afforded by this last explanation of vote to wish you ‘Bon appétit’, of course, and to apologise for the drain on the European Parliament’s finances, for I have been informed that every minute of my speeches costs the institution L 1,2 million. If the services were willing to pay half of it to please Mr Fatuzzo, I could save on the other half and not make any more speeches. Joking apart, I would like to end this explanation of vote by calling for the innovative measures of the Social Fund to be encouraged and accepted, even if they are proposed to the Union by the candidate countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
In Sweden, freedom of expression has been protected by the constitution since 1766. The Directive on Insider Trading and Market Manipulation has given rise to debate and to some degree of unease, since there is a continued wish to protect journalists’ right to freedom of expression, even once the directive has come into force. We believe however that we have received both sufficient explanations of why the directive is of great importance in terms of the desire, for example, to prevent financial speculation harmful to the private individual, and sufficient assurances that the directive will not have any effect upon the Swedish constitution. The directive as a whole has an important role to play in creating a free and more efficient financial market demanding sound consumer and investment protection. The amendment by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party would bring financial journalism within the scope of the directive, but responsibility for implementation would be left to existing self-regulating bodies. That is why we have today voted in favour of the Directive on Insider Trading and Market Manipulation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the international community, and certainly the European Union, is involved in a complicated balancing act. On one side are the Kosovars, waiting impatiently for a decision on the final status of their country, also waiting impatiently for elections and still – and let us be clear, understandably – full of hatred for the Serbs. In that climate the extremists have a free hand, for example in the Presevo area, where they are actually attacking KFOR troops, a situation that, in my eyes, and also for Mr Dupuis, is totally unacceptable. On the other side there is the Serbian Government which, with new faces in charge and fine plans, can be sure of a great deal of sympathy from the international community. It has, for example, come up with proposals for the same area, around Presevo, which I definitely think offer a good basis for negotiations and which I also think the Albanians should respond to. What one can now see happening is a shift in international sympathy from the awkward Kosovars to the cooperative Serbs. That is the moment – and the moment is now – that the balancing act is most difficult. What is the task of the EU? We must hold the Serbs to their promises which, however splendid they may be, as yet exist only on paper. We must isolate the extremist Kosovars and impress upon the moderate Kosovars, using force or persuasion as necessary, that they must cooperate with the Serbs, and that they cannot go on fighting them and pressing their demands. Once again, President, I can imagine easier tasks.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would firstly like to point out that the Committee on External Affairs has made an extraordinary effort to present a coherent report in accordance with the European Union’s objectives within the perspective of the ASEM process. It has done this, on the other one hand, by transforming the unfortunate and aggressive initial draft and, on the other, by taking on board that the agreements of the Third ASEM Conference in Seoul have replaced the initial proposals contained in the European Commission’s original document. We cannot ignore the enormous importance for the world, globally, and for the European Union specifically, of the improvement in relations between these two regions of the world – the European Union and Asia. And this is the case in all respects: economic, social, cultural, scientific and political. Despite the current conflicts and problems, Asia is the most dynamic region in the world. It contains three giants: Japan, China and India, which are going to be increasingly important on the international stage. Relations between the European Union and this region must therefore be particularly prudent and positive and at the same time help towards a negotiated and peaceful solution to the problems which are the result of an immediate past originating in the Cold War, as well as the colonial past. The objective should be to contribute to the world enjoying a multipolar situation in which international law, peace and economic and social development – which is just and balanced – should have increasing importance, and human, union and social rights and democracy should flourish as an everyday reality. China’s access to the World Trade Organisation has been important and the European Union must therefore maintain a special relationship with China in this respect. We therefore believe that, at the Fourth Summit in Copenhagen, parliaments, both European and Asian, must play an ever more important role as representatives of popular sovereignty.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, at a dinner in honour of this year’s Sakharov prizes the possibility of bringing all these prize winners together was once again spoken of. The two female winners face the same barrier: they are still without their freedom – Leyla Zana is in a Turkish prison and Aung San Suu Kyi is under house arrest in Burma. This is an intolerable situation and, at the same time, a reminder to us that human rights work needs not only to be celebrated but requires us to persevere and remain vigilant. Furthermore, as both women – in the eyes of their governments - are dangerous criminals, I cannot help asking myself whether Sakharov prize winner Nelson Mandela and the ANC led by him at the time would not seem to fit the definition of terrorism now being put together by the EU. Now, on hindsight, we opponents of apartheid are also being exposed as supporters of terrorism. We are in danger of forgetting that without conflict and social controversy, however heated and powerful, there can be no democracy. The right to different political views and their expression, as well as the legal protection of those suspected of crimes – even with just cause, perhaps – must be guaranteed to a far greater extent than is now the case at Laeken.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, Russia is refusing to sign up to the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation, which would open the way for significant aid from the West to clean up nuclear waste in Russia, something which Commissioner Nielson also mentioned. Russia is also refusing to sign the agreement regarding EUR 190 million, mostly in the form of a donation, for the construction of the South West Waste Water Treatment Plant in St Petersburg, which would improve water quality in the Gulf of Finland. There has been no sign that Russia intends to ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This concerns pollutants which threaten humans and animals in northern Russia. There is also no news on the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. We have every reason to believe that Russian interests have been implicated in the Prestige accident. Is Crown Resources a Russian company? Which Russian company was responsible for the 50 000 tonnes of oil on the tanker which had been loaded in St Petersburg? Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to put the following question to the Council and the Commission: Are our current tactics right whereby we are guaranteeing Russia’s position as a market economy and supporting the country before the WTO? It would seem that this carrot has not been enough. We need something stronger. It is time for the stick. I truly hope that, on the issue of cooperation in the area of economics, the environmental dimension will be taken up. We are doing everything we can, but the environmental dimension must not be forgotten. I hope that the examples I have listed convince you that our work has not been successful.

Political group: ELDR