GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, my Group voted against this report because we feel that this issue has been pushed and promoted by the arms industry. The rapporteur took offence at my saying this, but in reality you only have to look at the report and the conclusions of the Thessaloniki summit to see that it is clearly the arms industry in Europe who is setting the agenda and that everyone else is following. This is all about creating a European arms industry that can compete at an international level. It is about channelling our precious resources for research into producing weapons that are going to cause conflict in other parts of the world. The European Union space policy, for example, is heavily oriented towards security and defence applications such as signals. It is quite clear right down the line, that this is basically about promoting and supporting the arms industry. The CEO of the second largest aerospace and defence company in the world EADS has actually bemoaned the fact that the US already invests six times more than Europe in armaments research and that while the research budgets in the US continue to rise, those in Europe stagnate. That is something to be welcomed rather than criticised. We should be channelling our resources into something of greater benefit to mankind. He goes on to say that our defence industry is already at a serious competitive disadvantage, but the time has come for that industry to realise that it should move away from producing weapons that cause havoc around the world and start to produce something that will contribute to the betterment of society rather than to its destruction. Anyone who challenges my claim that this is basically aimed at the vested interests of the arms industry only has to look at what we voted on today and what the Council decided. There is absolutely no argument here. It is quite clear that this is at the behest of the arms industry. It is also quite clear from the rapporteur's report that this is the case. It is unacceptable. We believe that this is an incorrect use of resources.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, in our opinion, the new development at Genoa will not be the G8 Summit but, on the contrary, the meeting of the opposition movement. Many social and political organisations, including ourselves, see the G8 as illegitimate, as an expression of a serious tendency to take important decisions away from the sovereign powers. We are not the only ones to feel this: the entire Catholic episcopacy of the host region has declared itself to be of the same opinion. After the Gothenburg tragedy, it would have been wise to suspend the G8 meeting. Sometimes, it is a sign of wisdom not to resort to a display of strength; there is the risk that Europe will be catapulted backwards in time to when the forces of the law used to fire on the demonstrations held at the time by the workers' movement. This G8 Summit has become a futile display of power, an exaltation of the participants' own authority, but there are many who have lost confidence in it. They have lost confidence in it because globalisation cannot hide the damage it is doing in the world: it inevitably provokes crises, it is exacerbating injustices between north and south, it is not resolving the problems of poverty and illness but generating deep, widespread uncertainty regarding man's future and the future of the environment. As a result, it is those who are against the G8, the movements of civil society who are now speaking to the world; the young people from wealthy countries are speaking out on behalf of the poor countries of the world and their people. They are finding that demands for democracy and participation are not being met. They see the demands of individuals, the environment and groups calling for social justice. The watchword of the demonstrators is: 'Another world is possible'. This slogan is adopted by workers fighting for employment and proper salaries and by peasant farmers fighting for a different type of farming and for a response to the problems of hunger in the world alike, by all those fighting for a better future. Where is Europe? Europe remains silent. I feel that we have a lot to learn from the lesson that, while Europe is silent, a great religious force such as the Catholic Church succeeds in expressing more effectively and interpreting the requirements of the civil society of this great continent, expressing all the criticism of the illegitimacy of this summit and of the inability to manage the great processes of world modernisation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Council is not doing terribly well, is it? That is a very disappointing reply. I was asked to raise this question by the Penzance branch of Amnesty International, which has taken under its wing a particular prisoner of conscience, Thet Win Aung. I mention his name because he is a very good example of what is happening in Burma. He is a student leader who was recently sentenced to 52 years of imprisonment, and this has now been increased to 59 years. He was arrested in October 1998. His place of detention is not known and his family is being put under terrible pressure. My question to the Council is, given this awful background, is it willing to consider putting pressure upon Burma to declare a total amnesty for such political prisoners and, very much to the point, has the Council ever discussed the possibility of economic sanctions against Burma until it adopts a more humane policy?

Political group: PPE-DE
My group welcomes the Commission's proposal to introduce a temporary defensive mechanism for European shipyards in the light of the breakdown in the negotiations to put an immediate end to the unfair international competition in the shipbuilding sector. We also fully support the parliamentary amendments contained in the report, and in particular the one extending the duration of the measure until the end of 2003. For some time now, together with colleagues from other groups, my group has been highlighting the general problems faced by European shipbuilding and the specific problems resulting from the international situation. In September, the Group of the visited eastern Germany to familiarise itself with the situation faced by shipyards there and made renewed pleas to the Commission to take action. We see it as positive that a Commission proposal has now at last been tabled, which assures the yards, which have clearly suffered considerable damage because of unfair Korean trade practices, that help is at hand in the form of solutions which can be implemented quickly. Many of these yards are in structurally weak regions with very severe economic and social problems and form the core of the existing economic structure. Their existence and prosperity are the only way to secure thousands of jobs and safeguard the economic development of these regions. However, my group also believes that further measures are necessary to safeguard the future of European shipbuilding, which is one of the essential branches of European industry. These might include, in particular: - programmes to promote investment, which will have a long-term structural impact and create jobs; - the promotion of European cooperation on research and development in areas which affect the maritime economy; - the development of a coordinated maritime policy at European level; - the formulation and implementation of a European transport policy which seeks to move freight and passenger transport from the land to the sea. We call on the Commission to take a stance on the fundamental issues surrounding the future of European shipbuilding in the first half of 2002 and to propose an action programme to resolve the medium- and long-term problems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the recent Palestinian suicide attacks, Israel’s tough reaction to them and, to some extent, the statements by Prime Minister Sharon about Mr Arafat, have once again brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a head. This spiral of violence must now be broken as a matter of urgency. The international community must urge both parties to reach a permanent settlement and cease the terror. One glimmer of hope is at any rate the consultation between Prime Minister Sharon and some Palestinian official representatives that was held last weekend. As far as the European Union is concerned, a tougher stance would be welcome. We must strengthen our position in the peace talks, given the exceptional interests – and first and foremost the humanitarian interests – that are at stake. European leaders can no longer afford to look on from the sidelines, at the risk of a much greater and more extensive conflict emerging in the Middle East. The peace process will be a lengthy and tiresome process, but I remain convinced that with the necessary trust, the indispensable political will and the necessary perseverance, we can attain our common goal, namely a peaceful and prosperous Middle East.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I join my Scottish colleagues in asking the Commissioner to help us to resolve this situation as urgently as possible. It may surprise the Commissioner to have such a representation from Scotland, but Scotland is probably one of the greatest victims of this situation in the Channel Tunnel. Because of the reduction in transit through the Tunnel, we do not have a mere three services a night – we have none, because the service from Scotland to the continent has been withdrawn completely. As Mr MacCormick said, it is no longer possible to transport Scotch whisky to the Continent or to send our microcircuits to Paris, Frankfurt or Milan. But more than that: it is no longer possible for us to import parts and continental products by train. Costs for both exports and imports are increasing, as are road congestion and pollution. A service which did something to bring Scotland closer to the golden triangle of Europe has been lost, and so Scotland returns to the periphery. This is a tragedy, and why? Because we seem incapable of organising our immigration systems on a European basis and of providing adequate security to ensure that any such arrangement works. Clearly there are faults on the French side of La Manche and on the English side of the English Channel, but the victims are my constituents – hundreds of miles from Dover and Calais – in Scotland. I call upon the UK government to resolve its immigration system, in collaboration with its neighbours, so that it does not attract tens of thousands of desperate people. It is surely not coincidental that the UK is one of the only European countries without identity cards. I call upon the French authorities, from their old allies of the Auld Alliance, their Scottish cousins, to enforce real security at their end of the Tunnel so that the rail freight service to and from Scotland can be resumed. I call upon the Commissioner and the Commission to knock all their heads together urgently in order to reach a solution to this absurd state of affairs.

Political group: PPE-DE
The French Socialist delegation has voted for Mrs Stauner’s report postponing the granting of discharge for the financial year 1998, because it resulted from a compromise by our political group with the Group of the European People’s Party and the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. This resolution reflected the desire of the majority of members of the Committee on Budgetary Control to break the deadlock over Mrs Stauner’s proposed report in the committee, but also in the European Parliament, which was putting our institution’s relations with the Commission onto a defiant footing. The French Socialist delegation is glad a majority was achieved to pass Amendment No 5 highlighting the slippage between the resolution put to the vote and the explanatory statement. By that vote, Members have reaffirmed that only the rapporteur is responsible for the explanatory statement. The proposed report Mrs Stauner submitted to the Committee on Budgetary Control caused consternation far beyond the members of the committee itself. Indeed, the proposed document bore little relation to the discharge procedure, which is about approval of the accounts for the financial year and the propriety of the expenditure. The resolution put to the vote in Parliament today presents a catalogue of reasonable demands and recommendations to the Commission. The postponement and the response time given to the Commission allow it to answer the questions from the Committee on Budgetary Control within the set time. They leave the Committee on Budgetary Control sufficient time to prepare a report which will rule effectively on the implementation of the 1998 budget by the Commission.

Political group: PSE
I voted for this proposal because it forms part of a coherent set of measures that can and must contribute to Europe being able to cooperate more efficiently in the fight against terrorism, both within its borders and internationally. In this very part-session we have welcomed the initiatives on adopting a common definition of terrorist acts and levels of sanctions, and on replacing traditional extradition procedures with a simple system of surrendering criminals, on the basis of a European arrest warrant. The purpose of the proposal on Eurojust is to effectively improve cooperation between the judicial authorities of the Member States, whilst ensuring that fundamental rights are safeguarded, because the fight against terrorism, and against other forms of crime, can only be effective through improved cooperation between judicial authorities and police forces, with particular emphasis on the role to be played by Europol. This is an important and ambitious project, because crime does not recognise borders. It is, therefore, important to promote this judicial cooperation, and the exchange of information between Member States. The European Union’s citizens have the right to demand that the Union effectively addresses the problem of ever more frequent threats of crime against their freedom and rights. In order to do this, a new strategy must be adopted, one that consists of coordinating all our efforts in the aim of combating and preventing crime throughout the territory of the Member States. – Lagendijk report (A5-0386/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, because of the events in Chechnya, we have to push for a political decision, but that should not be, in my opinion, at the expense of the TACIS programme. Putting it on ice or reducing it in some way will hit ordinary Russians and our most important partners in cooperation. Russian cooperation has to be seen in the longer term. Russia must not be isolated, nor must it be allowed to cut itself off either. Through cooperation we must help social conditions to become established in Russia and democracy to gain strength. The flaws that became visible when the earlier programmes were being implemented have to be corrected. Now projects have all too often been left half-finished. There have been few practical results, and the greatest benefits have been reaped by western consultants and local middlemen. A lack of coordination in the Interreg programmes has also meant poorer results. We have to choose who we help, through these projects, more carefully and become more effective when implementing projects on a practical level. Our local partners in cooperation must also be called on to commit to closer cooperation, and the commitments have to be kept on both sides.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, in relation to Iraq I have swung from anger, through despondency, to determination. I am angry at the arrogance and the hubris of the UK and the US in launching this war. I am despondent that the European Union has been so impotent in its efforts at seeking to stop this war and to achieve a peaceful disarmament of the Iraqis. But I am also determined to ensure, insofar as I can in my small way, that we have a united, coherent, cohesive, common European foreign and defence policy. I am convinced that a united European Union could have stopped this war, could have disarmed Saddam Hussein, and indeed could have played an important role in bringing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That possibility is still there and we should do everything we can to put aside our relatively petty differences, based on national egotism in many cases, to reach a common position for Europe. We have an important role to play in the world and we should seek to play that role now of all times. Faced with the biggest security crisis since the end of the Cold War we have failed as a Union to address that crisis in a serious and effective way. That is quite appalling. We would be foolish too to assume that the Iraqi war is a one-off war plan. It is obvious that Syria, Iran, Cuba indeed, and North Korea are also on the agenda. It is time the European Union got its act together and made it clear that we will not stand for the kind of actions that have been taken in relation to Iraq, that we will unite to put in place serious peaceful conflict-prevention mechanisms to achieve what the world needs, that is, stability and peace.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on which we are about to vote is not what it appears to be. What it appears to be is a set of amendments to the Sirene Manual, which regulates the exchange of information between Member States in relation to the Schengen Information System. Underlying this vote, however, is something a little more complex. This Parliament was initially asked to express an opinion on two initiatives, but was refused access to the relevant documentation, the Sirene Manual. At a meeting of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, the Greek Presidency promised to grant that access so that we could express our opinion. The Council agreed to nothing of the sort. The Presidency gave in and the ban remained in place. The Council eventually agreed to reveal in committee the nature of the contents of the classified documents. On the basis of that information, I proposed the report which will be put to the vote today, approving the two initiatives with amendments. My committee accepted that proposal. By voting in favour, however, we are sending a political message to the Council, a message of good faith and collaboration, but also a message saying that it is time to stop playing hide-and-seek with the European Parliament. The Council has delayed opening talks with Parliament on how to deal with classified documents within the area of freedom, security and justice. This situation cannot continue. This type of information is usually available for Council work, but is not passed on to us in Parliament. There are other cases, too, in which information regarding a Member State is not passed on until the Member State in question decides that the information should no longer remain classified. If we are to prevent these situations from reoccurring, clear rules should be drawn up on dealing with classified documents in the legislative area, laying down an appropriate level of security and accepted by all the interested parties. That is the message we are sending the Council through this report. (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0300/2003) by Hans-Peter Mayer, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation repealing Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3976/87 and Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in connection with air transport between the Community and third countries (COM(2003) 91 – C5-0107/2003 – 2003/0038(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0210/2003) by Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative of the Republic of Austria with a view to adopting a Council Regulation establishing the criteria for determining the States which qualify as safe third States for the purpose of taking the responsibility for examining an application for asylum lodged in a Member State by a third-country national and drawing up a list of European safe third States (14712/2002 – C5-0010/2003 – 2003/0802(CNS)) (Parliament rejected the text of the initiative)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am going to speak on the same subject as Mr Bigliardo but I have something different to say. I am sorry – as I believe we all are – that Mrs Morgantini has suffered such an experience, but not because she is a Member of the European Parliament but because she is a European citizen: in other words, I would be just as concerned for any other European citizen. However, even before Mr Bigliardo spoke, I wanted to ask that, in tomorrow’s debate on the events in Israel and Palestine, the Commission call upon all the European citizens who are not officials of the United Nations, NATO or the European Union to refrain from indulging in macabre tourism out of curiosity and false solidarity. Those who go to a land where there is a genuine war taking place do so completely at their own risk and peril and cannot hope to involve the international community. They do not need any of this sort of tourism down there: our solidarity must be displayed within our own towns and countries and in parliamentary chambers. Two or three delegations of left-wing members of the Italian parliament have been stopped at Tel Aviv airport and sent home again: they did no more than visit the inside of the airport, creating further disturbance and generating further concern. I do not think there is any need for this. I therefore ask the Commission to call explicitly on the European citizens not to indulge in this sort of tourism.

Political group: PPE-DE