GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I reluctantly voted for this report. It is not perfect and already there is evidence that such data has been inadvertently released to third parties. I totally acknowledge the right of any country to protect and maintain its security. We have a clash of cultures here and expediency has triumphed.

Political group: PPE-DE
The proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is nothing more than the framework for what may well be non-military but which is equally imperialistic political and economic intervention What the sovereign masters of the European Union want is a rapid facility to mobilise human and financial resources which can intervene directly not just when there is a 'crisis' (which the authors of the text would do well to define), but even when there is simply concern that so-called assistance and cooperation programmes with these countries might be at risk or even merely affected. Of course, the brains behind the text do not conceal their intention to supplement the proposed measures with the European Public Security Force (armed obviously) which can be deployed in 'law and order operations'. Typically enough, the Committee on Foreign Affairs outdoes the Commission with its amendments abolishing the EUR 12 million ceiling on each intervention, the Crisis Committee and the nine-month limit on each intervention. The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece will never cease to condemn this EU policy, which aims to make third countries politically and economically dependent and suppress the grass-roots movement. Not only are we opposed to any form of imperialist rapid or even slow reaction facility, we shall do everything within our power to unite all the people in these countries against any imperialist plans to subjugate them and to claim the place which they deserve in a new, fair, international order.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here not with a legislative procedure, nor with a White or Green Paper, but exclusively with the implementation of Article 9 of the framework directive on water, which very precisely indicates how the costs of water services are to be covered. By 2010 at the latest, the Member States have to ensure that their policy on water charges offers appropriate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and that it takes into account the social, ecological and economic effects of covering the costs and the geographical and climatic conditions of the region in question. I have therefore attempted to make it clear in my report that the exploitability of our water resources must be maintained, for future generations as well, that we must keep to proven ways of keeping water pure and providing the population with clean drinking water, but that we may also look into new ways of doing this. In doing this, universal supply and drainage, high environmental standards, quality of provision and affordable prices must all be safeguarded. It should be possible to introduce business instruments and involve private enterprise, but also achieve proportionate optimisation of the operational structures involved in providing water supplies. I myself say an emphatic ‘No’ to the deregulation of water supply and drainage, but I say ‘Yes’ to every country being able to use its water in the way that the people want. I say ‘Yes’ to solidarity in water use within Europe, but this must not be invoked to force any Member State to make its water available to another Member State without charge. On the subject of the many amendments that have been proposed, I would just like to say briefly one thing: It is marvellous to repeat things that are important, and also to repeat them over and over again. It is also very difficult to speak against things that are right and important, especially if they have long been part of legislation and of a directive, such as the water framework directive. But the question arises of how suitable it is to proceed in this way. Since we are today only drawing up guidelines rather than legislating, I would say: so what? One amendment really hurts me – the one which, as it were, condemns a certain Member State because of a project which really is purely an internal matter for that State and the environmental effects of which have not yet been assessed and in respect of which, as and when European Union funds are actually granted, the laws of the European Union will of course have to be abided by. If I may establish a disagreeable precedent, I would be very happy if this amendment were perhaps to be voted down. I found the Commission document very good. I also think it a good thing that Parliament, in contrast to the practice in many Member States, can also be heard on the subject of a law's implementing regulation. I would like to hope that the Commission and the Council will find their efforts supported by Parliament's opinion. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I asked to speak in this debate not just because I am a Member from the north-west region of England where the Sellafield plant is situated, not just because there could be 10 000 livelihoods at risk if Sellafield was closed, and not because I have any vested interest in the nuclear industry. I do not. I asked to speak because I want to try and help to get some truth into this debate. The trouble is, when you talk about nuclear issues – especially Sellafield – it is dominated by a distortion of the truth. When Mrs Ahern spoke, she spoke of the NII giving a damning indictment of the plant. No, it did not! She spoke of the damning indictment on safety checks. No, it did not! It made three safety recommendations and the checks were quality assurance checks, as other speakers have said. She said the report came from a press statement in The Independent. No, it did not. The workers at BNFL raised the issue. They were the ones who discovered it. BNFL were the ones who told the nuclear installations inspectorate and their customers what had happened. She spoke of contamination of the seas in Ireland and Denmark. I quote from The Independent where seven prominent Danish scientists, who actually study as a professional interest the releases of radioactivity from Sellafield, said on 12 May: 'There is no scientific basis for the claim that the present release of radioactivity from Sellafield causes an unacceptable contamination in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions'. When your mind is made up facts only confuse the issue! She spoke of the scandal of abuse of safety. That is an absolute insult to the people who work there, and more so to their families who live near that site! Those workers would not work in that plant if they thought it was unsafe. They would certainly not put their families at risk it that was the case. That is an absolute indictment of those people who work there. Then she finished by talking about corruption. That really is the last throw of the dice. Finally, I say to the Commissioner: the one thing you should do, apart from listen, is to pay a visit to Sellafield and find out the facts for yourself. That is the best advice that I can give you and many Members of this Parliament also.

Political group: PSE
I have just voted in favour of Mr Graça Moura's report on the EU's strategy towards China and have consequently supported various amendments. Thousands of nuns and monks are continuing to be persecuted, imprisoned and mistreated. Tibet's cultural and religious autonomy is being denied. There is systematic settlement by Chinese people, so that Tibetans are increasingly becoming a minority in their own country. The report is right to take up Parliament's repeated call for the appointment of an EU special representative for Tibet. It also recalls the resolution of two years ago, in which Parliament called on the EU Member States to recognise the Tibetan government-in-exile within three years in the event of the Tibetan situation stagnating or getting worse. There is no alternative to a peaceful solution in the form of negotiations between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama – without any preconditions. As president of the Tibet Intergroup, I see complete autonomy for Tibet as a core objective. Such a bilateral solution should also be advantageous to the Chinese, who are concerned about their international reputation. Its starting point is the Dalai Lama's five-point plan and the speech he gave to our plenary meeting on 24 October 2001. What I find most lamentable is the attitude of the EU, which did not put China's human rights violations on the agenda at Geneva, preferring to deal with them in the context of the dialogue between the EU and China – and hence behind closed doors.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is not long since the Commission reopened the debate on the security of energy supply in the European Union. The Green Paper put forward by the Commissioner is an important instrument for energy policy in the European Union and clarifies some of the priorities in this field. Amongst other things, it proposes decisive action in connection with energy demand. If energy efficiency can be improved by 2.5% or 1% as the Commission proposes, we shall have succeeded in adding one more grain of sand towards achieving the objectives of the energy policy, which are to respect the environment, achieve a competitive market and improve the security of our energy supply. In this context, I have to congratulate the Commission on its proposals for encouraging renewable energies, energy efficiency, security of supply and biofuels, and the rapporteur, Mr Wijkman, on his references to future directives on building construction and cogeneration of heat and electricity, and I trust that the Council will give a much-needed boost to all these proposals. GDP in the European Union is growing by an average of 3%, and we citizens of Europe are enjoying increased well-being. We do not want to forgo this well-being, but we can make it more sustainable, especially in the construction and transport sectors. I do not think this is the moment to reopen the debate on the CO2 emissions tax, given the differences in tax rates imposed by the Member States and their effect on inflation. In addition, it has no effect on energy efficiency. Neither should we separate this question from other additional measures to ensure that the internal electricity market works properly. Lastly, it must be made quite clear that improved energy efficiency does not cut CO2 emissions but simply optimises them, since they will only come down through a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. It is important that at the same time as we debate this issue we should think about promoting other forms of energy and carrying out consistent policies in other fields.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to express my agreement with this recommendation for second reading and with the consequent adoption of the Council common position, which I believe is of crucial importance to the promotion of road safety. As advocated by Mr Hatzidakis, whom I shall take this opportunity to congratulate on his excellent work, increasing road safety by limiting the speed of the vehicles used in both passenger and freight transport, is to be welcomed. The Commission’s proposal to extend the scope of the directive in force – Directive 92/6/EEC – and the phased installation of speed limitation devices reflects a constant concern of Parliament, which is the promotion of road safety in the European Union, to which I have always subscribed and which I continue to call for. I therefore agree with the rapporteur on the need to adopt the Council common position as rapidly as possible and without amendments, given that most of the amendments tabled by Parliament have been taken into account, whilst new elements have also been incorporated, which have helped to improve the clarity of the text under our consideration. - Report Goodwill (A5-0232/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Over the past fifteen years, meat inspectors in Belgium – people who are not technical engineers but qualified vets – have invested all their energy, all their might, all their resourcefulness in the fight against the illegal use of hormones in cattle farming. This is done in difficult circumstances. They need to resist attempts to bribe them. They are physically intimidated, and some are also affected in their private lives, because attacks have been made on their properties, and even on their lives and that of their relatives. In fact, one vet-inspector, Karel Van Noppen, was killed on 20 February 1995. It is fortunate that the killers and their clients were sentenced for this last year, and that they are now behind bars. These are thus the difficult circumstances under which these courageous officials have the European total ban on the use of hormones enforced. On occasion, the inspectors have also been thwarted in their unremitting labour by flippant statements made by certain scientists who have claimed out loud that the use of those sex hormones was totally harmless to public health. Anyone who reads the Olsson report knows that this is hogwash. In this light, I consider the approval of the Olsson report as a MARK OF HONOUR to all meat inspectors in Europe who carry out sound work and an INCENTIVE to remain permanently vigilant. - Corbey report (A5-0200/2003)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, many people thought that the end of the cold war meant that we would finally have a world at peace. Yet exactly the opposite has happened. There has never been so much violence in the world. It was in this climate of fear and interrogation that the Bush administration launched its anti-terrorist crusade, the sole aim of which was actually to ensure the economic, and therefore military, supremacy of his empire in a globalised liberal economy. A new concept has been born, a concept full of tragic consequences, the concept of preventive war. It is in the name of the fight against the private terrorism of his former agent Bin Laden that Bush is now legalising state terrorism, the first victims of which are the Palestinian or Iraqi people and the first accomplices of which are Sharon, Blair or Aznar. It is always in the name of the fight against terrorism that a new arsenal of repression is being stockpiled throughout the world, which calls into question fundamental liberties. What values could we possibly have in common with a government which has organised that camp of the living dead in Guantanamo Bay? Far from weakening private terrorism, this arsenal actually tends to criminalise any opposition to the establishment of this new order, such as trade-union, associative or anti-globalisation movements. Unfortunately, the European Union has participated in this undertaking, with a definition of terrorism which is fatal to liberty, by adopting the European arrest warrant or the many laws against immigrants, not to mention those governments which still, in Europe, dare to prohibit abortion. The campaign to eradicate war and violence cannot be confined to pious hopes, which is something which Parliament has a habit of doing. We must attack the root of the evil, a social system dominated solely by profit, which transforms people into commodities, a regime which destroys the environment and excludes billions of human beings from employment, from health or education systems, from housing, or even from the basic ability to feed themselves. Capitalist globalisation generates the globalisation of violence. Even now, however, we can take practical steps, for example by regularising the situation of illegal immigrants, prohibiting collective deportations on charter flights, insisting that the Council freezes the association agreements with Israel, reorganising the distribution of wealth, in particular by imposing a Tobin tax on movements of capital, or, finally, cancelling third world debt.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is sometimes said in the debate in my home country that the EU cannot be changed, but I think that the political agenda we are now discussing shows that change can be made. In 1995, when I was new to this Parliament, we almost exclusively discussed stabilisation policy. This area remains, but stabilisation policy has been supplemented by issues regarding growth, employment and social welfare. A changed reality has made this possible, but it is also a matter of political priorities. This has come about via Amsterdam and Lisbon and is now continuing in Stockholm. It is sometimes said that the issues which we are now addressing – issues of employment and social welfare – are exclusively national. Yes, to a large extent they are local, regional and national issues. However, by setting out targets for meeting common challenges in the future, we create added value through a European policy. We do this partly through straightforward legislation in areas such as the work environment and labour law and partly through the open coordination method, which means establishing common targets for various matters. The process of monetary union and targets for inflation, interest rate development and budget deficits have proven the success of the approach. Now we are doing the same thing for employment levels, exclusion and demographic issues. The Lisbon process comprises three parts: economic policy, employment policy and social policy/social cohesion. It is important that there be a balance between these three areas, which are all vital to the process. I would like to thank rapporteur Bullmann for highlighting, in his report, this balance and the importance of maintaining it. I would like to emphasise two points in particular: education policy in a knowledge-based society, which is incredibly important, and, as I have said, the significance of tackling the challenges with regard to demographic development right now. In Stockholm we need to focus, as we cannot manage everything at once. So let us focus on certain important issues so as to set the process in motion. Indicators are not an end in themselves, but simply a means of achieving established targets. I would also like to emphasise the role of Parliament. We have a role in legislation, but we have no clear role in the issue of the open coordination method. As this becomes increasingly important, we must have an Institutional Agreement in which the role of Parliament is strengthened. However, one ingredient is missing – we mention it in our report and hope that the Gothenburg Summit will address the same aspect – and that is also to link the ecological aspects to this process and to these issues.

Political group: PSE
Thank you for your answer, Commissioner. Clearly, it is too early to draw any conclusions, but I believe some progress could certainly be made both on cooperation concerning language learning methods and on the preservation of unusual languages. I know that the Commission is aware of the current difficulties when it comes to cooperation on preserving minor languages and I hope that the Commission is able to use some of the experience that has been accumulated in order to maintain and develop those cultures and languages that belong together.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, today is a great day for Strasbourg. I would disagree with Mrs Maij-Weggen. I believe that Strasbourg is the independent and parliamentary face of a cultural Europe which has freed itself from bureaucracy and, in this respect, I am very happy about events here today. We could put an end to the travelling circus without changing the Treaty, by doing away with the superfluous mini plenary sittings in Brussels. We can do so quite independently. We would start saving money almost immediately. I invite Mrs Maij-Weggen to support me in this. As far as the Council is concerned, I take the view that Helsinki was a Summit of peaks and troughs. One peak was, without a doubt, the clear signal to the second group of central and eastern European countries that they were no longer isolated and that negotiations would be started with them. I welcome this in particular in the case of Slovakia and the Baltic States. However, the decision on Chechnya was also extremely important. Parliament demanded quite clearly two and a half months ago that the Council suspend parts of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and transfer financial aid and the TACIS programme to humanitarian assistance in order to bring home to Russia that it can no longer continue this genocide. We were opposed at the time in no uncertain terms. I am very glad that the Council is now living up to the standard which we in Parliament tried to set two and a half months ago. I would ask the Council and the Commission to ensure that TACIS aid is transferred at once, because we can no longer back a mixture of bloodthirsty election campaigning and bloodthirsty colonial war. We want Russia as a partner, but only as a partner which respects human rights. This Parliament stands for a Europe of human rights, as Mr Oostlander said. Russia can only be a partner if it ceases this genocide immediately.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sure the applause was not for the fact that I am about to speak. Can I first of all congratulate the rapporteur on her very timely report. No doubt we will all have the usual shoot-out just before Christmas on TACs and quotas and we can see the lead into that coming along. For a long time – in fact for as long as I can remember – there has been a problem with cod stocks and we seem unable to find a solution to it because all our efforts to date have quite clearly not succeeded. We are told by the scientists that everything that has happened to date has not worked. We are told by the fishermen that the scientists have got it wrong. As I have said before in this House, we are stuck in the middle trying to find out what is right and what is wrong. We have quite clearly not got it right to date, and I think we have to ask whether the scientists have got it right. Has what we have done to date achieved anything? I have to ask you, Commissioner, because in Box 7a in the Irish Sea, where the fishermen of Northern Ireland fish, those spawning grounds have been closed for the last four or five years to allow the new larvae to come forward. What, according to the scientists, has that achieved? Surely it should have achieved something or at least we should know if it has brought some response? The recent ICES report will spell total disaster for the white fish industry in the United Kingdom as a whole and will certainly destroy the Northern Ireland fleet. I believe we need a more regional approach. I believe we need an input from the people at regional level and we need to look at other measures that will add to cod recovery. We have to look at what the effect will be on other species fishes. I realise it is not easy and I realise you have a very difficult problem, Mr Fischler. Yet the common fisheries policy does not make it easier and you cannot resolve this problem unless you get the fishermen on your side, That is what you must try to do, because they are central to this, they are part of it and they are going to suffer most from it.

Political group: PPE-DE