GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The open coordination procedure is an underhand way of promoting EU policies outside the framework of the Treaties. The procedure consists of determining guidelines, transferring them to national policy and monitoring, evaluating and reviewing them. It is being promoted as a coordination procedure on a voluntary basis and as a mechanism for exchanging experience; however, the fact that it does not require legislation at Community level makes it particularly opaque and, consequently, ideal for promoting anti-grass roots policies or policies which fall outside the competences of the ΕU. Between when it was introduced and today, it has been applied many times to issues of employment, social policy, research policy, for companies, education, immigration, asylum and so on. Thus, the peoples of the Member States of the ΕU come up against a volley of anti-labour measures (for example, employment relations, pensions and the famous Bologna process for universities), without realising that they emanate from the ΕU. The report which we are examining not only fails to oppose the anti-democratic essence of the procedure, but also tries to beautify it and give it a democratic veneer. For these reasons, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against it, just as we voted against the motion by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. The workers will not be deceived by the policy of the ΕU, however much and however they try to wrap it up.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Does the presidency agree that Kashmir is a good example of a conflict allowed to fester for too long? While our attention is understandably focused elsewhere – such as on the Middle East – we tend to forget that there are very dangerous conflicts going on in other parts of the world and therefore tend to do too little about trying to resolve them? Is the presidency aware that there are many EU citizens of Kashmiri origin – not least in my own constituency – who are very worried, and increasingly worried, about the wellbeing of their relations? Does the President-in-Office agree that it is now time to press even harder for the parties concerned to find a negotiated solution? We should not forget that conflict while our attention is focused elsewhere. We need to pay more attention to it as a European Union and, if necessary, we offer the European Union's services as a mediator if that would be helpful to those involved.

Political group: PSE
The coastal areas of the West of France are now polluted due to the wreck of the Erika. Everyone knows that the more time that passes, the greater the risk of such a dreadful incident recurring. In fact, the American legislation adopted in 1990, after the Exxon Valdez ran aground on the coast of Alaska, prohibits oil tankers that do not meet the consolidated and strictly controlled safety criteria from having access to American ports. The inevitable result is that oil tankers that do not meet these criteria will be forced, increasingly, into European waters, thereby increasing the likelihood of pollution. The European Parliament should therefore, as an urgent priority, study these problems and immediately obtain an undertaking, firstly from the Commission, and then from the governments of the Member States, that they will establish a body of rules designed to protect marine and tourist activities along the coasts of Europe. It is essential for an operational European Maritime Agency to be set up immediately, whose main aim would be to coordinate the safety checks carried out on oil tankers using European ports in accordance with standardised methods. Ladies and gentlemen, it is undoubtedly necessary to draw up and vote on a resolution, but the main thing now is to take specific, strong and bold steps to prevent further disasters. - Joint resolution on storms in Europe

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission's proposal for a ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals – but only within the European Union – is totally inadequate. I agree entirely with the rapporteur. It will allow us to pretend that we are doing something to prevent animal cruelty, but while maintaining the same testing requirements not one fewer animal would suffer. By contrast, the rapporteur and the Committee, in calling for a sales and marketing ban, are maintaining the previous signal and the moral guidance about the relationship between humans and animals: that we do not accept that cruelty should be practised on animals for no better purpose than to develop products which are essentially frivolous and designed to flatter our vanity. The Committee has addressed some spurious issues put up by the industry, such as that of the possible health benefits from new products, which they said could be reclassified as pharmaceuticals. Our emphasis is on saying that the industry should spend a little less on marketing and a lot more on developing alternative testing methods. Despite the vociferous objections of the industry, with 8 000 products already on the market, with the shop shelves heaving with deodorants and shampoos, make-up and hair gels etc., it hardly seems likely that a great many people are going to lose out if a marketing ban is introduced. At the heart of this debate lies the problem of the World Trade Organisation. The truth is we do not know whether possible objections can be sustained. If they can, then change is needed. Whether it be this issue or the environment or the application of the precautionary principle, we must have the democratic freedom to be able to insist on some minimum standards acceptable to the majority of our citizens. It is totally unacceptable that those who seek to bring about improvements in animal welfare should be told by the Commission to put up the white flag and run away from the battlefield even before we know whether the enemy is armed. That would not indicate wise judgment, but abject cowardice demonstrating a total want of real leadership.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Quisthoudt-Rowohl, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the was very anxious to see the implementation of the framework programme simplified and – let us be honest – humanised. The report by Mrs Quisthoudt-Rowohl, whom I should like to thank most sincerely for taking on the task and for the provisions full of common sense which she has included regarding the rules for participation, has set us on the right track. I should like to emphasise that, for the first time in the framework programme, the acceding countries will enjoy rights that are equivalent to those of the Member States, and the European scientific cooperation organisations and those of the acceding countries will be able to participate on the same footing as the bodies established in the Member States. I am also pleased to see that the organisations in third countries will be able to participate fully in the projects in the framework programme. This is particularly important for our group, which wants to intensify research with developing countries and with the countries of the Mediterranean and of Latin America. Taking into account the new management provisions – provided, in particular, by the new tools – it will certainly be necessary to optimise operations during the implementation of this programme, but without, however, opting for formal conciliation procedures. With this in mind, we should like to thank the Council, as represented by Mr Marimón, who has devoted a lot of attention to this matter, for having agreed to our proposal intended to speed things up. This is why we would be happy to maintain regular contact between Parliament and the Commission, which will in fact be possible thanks to the kind competence of Mr Busquin, in particular with a view to the possible updating of the evaluations at the halfway point, in 2004.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner – whose presence we are grateful for – ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Souchet, on the wonderful report he has presented to us, on an issue which was not at all easy – Northern hake. Firstly, the Commission presented us with a proposal which, initially, was combined with cod – and which our Parliament rejected, as has been said already. Secondly, it made a separate, but very rigid and severe, proposal, which compared Northern hake with cod, with a genuine recovery plan and with fishing effort. Our Parliament had been consulted at the same time as the Council, and the negotiations were carried out in parallel, which obliged our rapporteur to be flexible in terms of adopting our draft report. Mr Souchet has made a serious study of issues relating to hake – as he has said, our Committee on Fisheries spoke to the sector – and has presented a report which fundamentally changes the Commission's original conceptions, for which he has our full support and thanks. I would also like to thank Mr Souchet for having accepted the numerous amendments which we had presented on behalf of the Group of the European Peoples’ Party – I am truly grateful to him for this – since we have ensured that it is not a recovery plan, but rather a genuine management plan. I would like to draw the Commission's attention to this issue: it is a genuine management plan without fisheries effort, in accordance with the sector's request. The Souchet report is coherent, solid, reasonable and combines the defence of sustainable and responsible fishing of Northern hake with the social and economic aspects of the fisheries sector. The combination of these two aspects is something fundamental which we hope will be taken into account in the future. We believe that the future regional advisory councils will have to help us not to take false steps and to present proposals for the management of fisheries resources which have the consensus of both scientists and the sector itself. We have also appointed Mr Souchet rapporteur for the future management plan for Southern hake. Although it will possibly be the next Parliament established following the June elections which has to deal with this issue, the Committee on Fisheries will have to hold the necessary meetings so that, having heard the advisory councils which are created in this regard, both scientists and the sector can take part in the debates on Southern hake, and this must take place in parallel with the socio-economic measures we have requested and adopted already in the modification of the FIFG. And more importantly: in the future, the FIFG will have to provide for socio-economic measures so that, when any recovery or management plan is adopted, it is automatically accompanied by the corresponding socio-economic measures. We congratulate Mr Souchet once again and we hope that by means of this report, which we will vote on tomorrow, we will have taken a very important step in terms of supporting sustainable fisheries and the fisheries sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is a fact that this disgraceful law, known as the Helms-Burton Act, has had catastrophic consequences both for Cuba and its people, and for humanity as a whole. Not only does it seek to subjugate a proud race which insists on its right to self-determination; it also signals the wish on the part of the American imperialists, manifested on numerous occasions, to impose their will and their laws on the international economy, on international trade and on international business. This is why the Helms-Burton Act has met and continues to meet with general disapproval and demands for its immediate repeal, and rightly so. What worries me is that the request for European undertakings to be exempted from the scope of this criminal legislation, however beneficial this may in fact be to European undertakings, fails to solve the problem. In essence, it is tantamount to acknowledgement of the Act, thereby detracting from the very pressure which we are exerting for its repeal. Do you not think, Commissioner, that the European Union should exert all its influence, using every means imaginable, to bring about the immediate repeal of this unacceptable Act, rather than confining itself to statements.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I would like to congratulate Mrs Smet on her report and thank the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities for adopting so many of the conclusions produced by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Three things are clear: one, women's wages are on average lower than men's across all occupations; two, women are predominantly employed in areas where the work has traditionally been regarded as of less value; three, women comprise a significantly higher proportion of part-time workers than men. The problem is therefore, clearly a deeply rooted one and cannot be solved without concerted action by all parties. This must include the introduction of job evaluation schemes based on objective, gender-neutral criteria, so that the current undervaluing of women's skills is brought to an end. However, we need also, as Mrs Smet has said, a much wider range of initiatives designed to tackle the structural disadvantages suffered by women on the labour market. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is appreciative of the extent to which the Commission is already addressing the issue through its proposals for the employment guidelines in 2002. The emphasis on gender mainstreaming and the strengthening of guideline 17 are particularly welcome. We also look forward to the proposals the Commission may have for a revision and updating of the 1975 equal pay directive. In the meantime, we call on both the Member States and the social partners to involve themselves actively in developing measures of the kind urgently needed to eliminate the gender pay gap.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, violation of human rights and discrimination against minorities are the main causes of civil and international conflict and war nowadays, which is why many take the view that applying the right to self-determination without compromise is the only way of combating discrimination against and the repression of minorities. However, they often overlook the fact that this often creates new minorities which are then subject to the same discriminatory mechanisms and which must again try to become independent and break free from this yoke. In the Balkans in particular, with its widely scattered mixture of people from different ethnic, religious and linguistic backgrounds, it is impossible to make a clear ethnic division, nor, from my understanding, should we want to do so. Conflict prevention and crisis management in the Balkans nowadays mainly consists of not taking any unilateral action which might upset the precarious balance of power. Especially as assassination attempts and terrorist activities are not, of course, designed to bring about a new order, but to create new disorder. What we have to do is to provide support, especially to all those states – and Macedonia is at the top of the list – which are doing everything they can to integrate minorities into civil society, and this also applies to present-day Yugoslavia and Serbia. To my mind, conflict prevention and crisis management by the European Union today means sending out clear messages to all extremist ethnic Albanian groups who do not want peace and to the extremist organisations or people – there are not many, but they do exist – attached to the HDZ in the Croatian part of Bosnia-Herzegovina which is unilaterally trying to upset the Dayton agreement – however problematic that may be. And I also think that we need to send a clear message to Montenegro, so that no unilateral action is taken there, action which may be to celebrate their independence but which jeopardises peace and stability in the region.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my contribution to the debate concerns the Christian groups in Turkey which are punished disproportionately severely and are detained in Turkish jails precisely because of their ethnic origin and their faith. There they experience many difficulties. They are badly treated, not only by the management of the prisons, but also by their fellow-prisoners and are scarcely given any protection. Turkey has some 62 million inhabitants, 99% of whom are Muslims and less than half a per cent Christian. The largest group of Christians are citizens belonging to the Armenian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Then in Western Turkey there are the Greek Orthodox Christians. And although the Turkish constitution respects freedom of religion, courses run by the Armenian and Greek Orthodox churches have been closed on a massive scale, as have the courses of the Syrian Orthodox Church. The Armenian Christian community particularly is constantly subject to new attacks. Not so long ago, a Christian bookshop in Eastern Turkey was besieged by armed soldiers, as a result of which one person was killed and 26 wounded. The only crime was the selling of Bibles. According to the spokesman of the Armenian patriarch in the last few years 40 plots of land belonging to the Christian Armenian church have been confiscated by the Turkish state. Anyone protesting is imprisoned and as a non-Muslim treated badly in the prisons. The Syrian Orthodox Church is treated even more harshly and as a result of the intimidation more than 100 000 Syrian Orthodox citizens have left Southern Turkey, some of them to Western Europe. In the province for which I am politically responsible, there are 9 000 Syrian Orthodox Christians and they have lost over 800 villages in Southern Turkey. Those people who have stayed are intimidated, imprisoned and badly treated. I am not an opponent of Turkey’s accession into the European Union, but I must say that if this mistreatment of Christians in Turkey continues, I may yet come out against Turkey’s membership.

Political group: PPE-DE
I think the President-in-Office neatly side-stepped my question. Of course, paragraph 13 records what was agreed, not what was not agreed. So I repeat my question to him: Was it discussed? What were the arguments? What was the balance of opinion on that occasion? Surely he can share that with us this evening. What is more, will he take back to the further discussions in the Council the advantages of untying aid? According to the World Bank, this increases aid effectiveness by between 12 and 20 per cent. Surely, he would agree that development is about helping developing countries to help themselves. And if we rely on European consultants, European companies, European technical assistance, are we not just reinforcing the dependence which development is trying to replace? Does he finally agree that untying aid increases the role of the private sector within developing countries? It increases local skills and knowledge. It brings about local ownership development projects. If he does agree, will he do something about it?

Political group: PSE
This report puts forward prejudices that are nothing other than stupid but which, in addition, are used as a justification for reducing pensions and increasing the length of one’s working life. To use arguments related to demography and what the report refers to as the ‘constantly increasing life expectancy in conjunction with low birth rates’ equates to deceit if the considerable increase in the profitability of work is also concealed. Given that every worker is increasing their level of productivity, the same number of working people produces more than enough to improve their own standard of living and to guarantee a comfortable pension for three or four times as many pensioners as was possible 25 years ago. If this increase in production capacity were not entirely channeled into profits for the privileged few, society might be able to ensure that all pensioners were paid a full salary, without having to force them to work longer. Your economy turns everything into goods, including the pensioners that you wish to hand over to the finance sharks but, in the same way, it is the working class pensioners who are worn out from working that you are turning into goods, and this is appalling. The inability to ensure that old people live a retirement that is free from material concerns is one of the most striking examples of a self-indulgent society.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that the need to develop trade as effectively as possible and the new challenges posed by globalisation, as well as the need to consolidate a balanced commercial system which will contribute to sustainable development and whose benefits will also extend to the less developed countries, require a strengthening of the rules which govern international trade. Hence the importance of the coming conference in Seattle and the timeliness and suitability of the proposals in the Commission’s communication as regards the upcoming negotiations. In fact, given the challenges before us, it is clear that the next Round cannot be limited to simply widening the regulatory framework, however important that may be, nor must it only ensure that trade liberalisation contributes to economic and social growth in the less developed countries, although I share fully in that desire. Rather, it must also establish rules which will lead to the opening up of markets and guarantee compliance with them. We have to bear in mind that for European industry – and I am thinking in particular of the textile sector – access to the markets of the developed countries and emerging economies on reciprocal terms is a fundamental priority. To this end it is essential that the Commission achieves the harmonisation of tariffs and the elimination of tariff peaks and tariff progression, as well as the removal of all technical barriers to trade, on the understanding that the less developed countries should be guaranteed free access to the international market for all their products so that they can also benefit from trade liberalisation. And now, Commissioner, I would like to ask you firstly if you can confirm your intention not to accept, on the agenda of the negotiations, any reconsideration of the agreement on the textile sector as regards the clothing industry and, secondly, how you consider that China’s membership of the World Trade Organisation will affect the European textile industry, bearing in mind that that country is the world’s foremost exporter of textile products. Finally, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report and his desire to reach the widest possible consensus on a subject as important as the coming Millennium Round, which we depend on to consolidate a balanced trading system which will ensure, on a global level, an economic order based on social justice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, whether amendments 1 and 4 are important or not, have we been made aware of them ? Why should Mr Elles, who belongs to one of the larger groups, have amendments that we are not even aware of? I cannot see the logic of this. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE