GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, there is no doubt that the conflict which has been going on in Colombia for more than thirty years cannot be resolved by military means. We agree, Commissioner, that violence can only create more violence. That is why the Group takes a positive view, not only of what strictly constitutes the Colombia Plan to put an end to the production and trafficking in drugs, but also of the concerted efforts of President Pastrana to hold dialogue with the guerrilla movement and his proposed strategy to deal with the problem at its roots and attack its causes, because the objectives of this strategy are to create alternatives which will facilitate the economic and social recovery of Colombia, the resolution of the armed conflict with the guerrilla movement, the strengthening of the democratic institutions, social development and finally the fight against drug trafficking. In fact, unless the violence is not brought to an end through dialogue, unless rural workers are offered alternatives which will enable them to lead dignified lives, unless the serious problem of displaced people is resolved, unless human rights are respected, unless the foundations on which the rule of law is based are strengthened and impunity is brought to an end, unless drug trafficking is brought to an end, peace in Colombia will be nothing more than a fantasy. It therefore seems to us to be essential – and we are delighted about it – that the European Union should support President Pastrana’s peace efforts in the way that the President-in-Office of the Council has just announced and also in the way that the Commission, through Commissioners Patten and Nielson, had announced previously and which it has just reiterated. Thanks to this aid, we are making a contribution to resolving the situations of social justice and to improving the living conditions of the local population, as well as strengthening the democratic institutions. It also seems essential to us that FARC’s leaders return to the negotiating table and that the time period for the peace zone be extended beyond the weekend which President Pastrana has just proposed, so that the peace talks may continue and reach a successful conclusion. But this is also why, since we are determined to find peace and well-being for the people of Colombia, we ask that President Pastrana intensify his fight against the paramilitaries and armed groups which violate human rights and spread pain and death amongst the civil population, and we also ask him to apply the United Nations resolutions on human rights. This is the only way, with the concerted effort of all of us, with a truly intense and decisive fight for peace, that it will be possible for hope to return to the people of Colombia.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when, on 9 November 1989, we stood in front of our television sets and saw people, intoxicated by the spirit of democracy, hurling themselves over the Berlin Wall, we all felt the pulse of history. The very same night saw the beginning of the enlargement process, or the reunification of Europe, as the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party prefers to call it. We now stand on the threshold of creating a unified Europe, an EU for the whole continent. It is, of course, nothing less than an historic sensation. Now, however, we must move on a stage from merely engaging in rhetoric, whereupon it becomes a question of hard facts: money, agriculture and ancient border conflicts. Who said that it would be simple? Who believed that it would not cost anything? Who believed that we should not have to make sacrifices? Certainly, enlargement has a price, but it is worth it. Obviously, there are still a lot of problems to be solved, but we must not drown in details. 2002 is an incredibly important year for enlargement, but it is also a year with elections in six Member States and three candidate countries. The European issues will become important, but there is a very great risk of domestic political considerations overshadowing enlargement and the European issues. That is why vigorous European leadership and action by the Commission is required to force the pace during these crucial months. 2002 must not be a lost year. Enlargement must not be delayed.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Pensioners’ Party, which I represent here, strongly approves of this report on the European Union’s management of the external borders of our 15 Member States, soon to become 25, and shortly thereafter, 27. In my opinion, it is important to immediately give economic strength and, in particular, the European Union’s support, to all these new candidate countries which, in two or four years’ time, will constitute the external borders of the Union. In fact, it is clear that this is where the weakness of the borders lies, and the first months following the entry of these States, in law and in fact, into the European Union, is when there will be the greatest danger of a violation of the new external borders of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Europe is strongly divided over the debate currently taking place on the future of the common agricultural policy. Basically, on one side, there are the advocates of multifunctional farming, of which I am one, who find it unacceptable that 80% of Community aid should end up in the purses of 20% of the farmers, and, on the other side, there are the defenders of the status quo. In this respect, Mr Kanbhai’s report gives me the opportunity to put paid to a rumour which is all too often spread about and which I consider to be erroneous, namely that the European Union is closed to exports coming from the world’s poorest countries. The implication is that we are falling short of our duty of solidarity towards the developing countries by implementing a protectionist agricultural policy focusing solely on European farmers. Where does this rumour come from, considering that the European Union imports more agricultural products from developing countries than from the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand taken together? Lies, I suppose. Are we to infer from this that boosting trade and agricultural deregulation are the essential pillars of development policy? (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, any medicine can be dangerous. If we need any reminder of that, we need only look at the thousands who die each year from taking authorised prescription medicines. By comparison, the risks posed by traditional herbal remedies are minimal. So let us keep a sense of proportion and make sure we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Nobody should object to rules intended to safeguard health and to ensure that the consumer can make informed decisions. However, excessively restrictive application of regulations may threaten the future of some producers and specialist suppliers such as health food shops, possibly encouraging consumers to buy from unregulated internet suppliers. I therefore ask the Commission to be careful in its application of these regulations and to take account of these genuine concerns. In particular, I ask the House that if a herbal medicine has been used anywhere in the world for more than 30 years and there was clear evidence that its normal use is safe, then we should not deny it to the people we represent. We must not be so arrogant as to imply that Europe has nothing to learn from others.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the single most important aim of the reform process must be to turn the Commission into a world-class administration capable of serving the European public. The first question the Socialists must ask is whether the proposed reforms are good news for staff. They are not. They are not good news for staff who persistently under-perform. They are not good news for staff who hope to be promoted simply on the basis of the number of years spent behind their desk. They are not good news for staff who refuse to acquire new skills. They are not good news, in other words, for a small minority of Community officials. They are excellent news for all other staff. Radical reform of the category system introducing a linear career structure will provide new opportunities for staff especially women and young people. My question to the Commissioner is, in the process of consultation that is ahead now, will he ensure that the interests of a small minority with vested interests do not prevail over the future prospects of the vast majority of staff.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr Barón Crespo, Chairman of the Socialist Group, also directed a comment to me. Last Monday we did indeed have a wide-ranging discussion in the Committee on Budgetary Control on the admissibility of this question, and on whether, as chair of the committee, I should make use of Rule 161. Almost every member of the committee spoke on this. I myself have several times looked into the connection between the resolution, as it now appears in the compromise, and the explanatory statement, which reflects the rapporteur’s position and is her responsibility. I established the connection, and I said in the clearest terms that the language in the explanatory statement before us is very harsh. Nevertheless, I do not think I should comment on the style and choice of words in a censorious way, because I would then have to do the same for every explanatory statement. As I see it, there is a factual connection and I therefore decided not to reject this explanatory statement and informed the committee accordingly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Commission report confirms that, with the exception of Germany, state aid to businesses is increasing. The Commission finds this worrying only from the point of view of the conditions of competition. As far as we are concerned, we look at things from the point of view of the interests of the working classes. Society gains nothing from these massive transfers of public funds to private business. Take, for example, the car manufacturing sector, where subsidies and state aid of various sorts have increased by 24% during the reference period. With what aim? Not to save jobs. All these firms have gone ahead with job cuts and even redundancies. Not to improve working conditions, for in increasing production with fewer workers, working conditions are made worse. Did these firms need state aid to survive? No, car manufacturers have been making colossal profits for years. State aid is not only counterproductive because, as the Jonckheer report acknowledges, it gives rise to subsidy hunting with firms relocating from one country to another, but it is unacceptable because it allocates public monies to the enrichment of a handful of private shareholders. It is because the richest people are being favoured everywhere with state money that throughout Europe social protection is being reduced, public services are being abandoned, hospitals are being closed. In voting against the Jonckheer report, I wish to assert the need for another policy, to wit, ceasing all aid to private firms and utilising the money thereby saved to develop public services and recruit staff.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if I may, I wanted to highlight the exceptional nature of Mr Bourlanges’ report, which comes at just the right time, given the development of the Convention. The Convention has been bled almost dry by a virtual IGC with the arrival of numerous Foreign Affairs ministers. Thanks to Mr Bourlanges’ report, it is the European Parliament that is restoring to the Convention its strength with the absolutely essential elements of clarity and a sense of perspective. Clear legislation, because if we are all meant to be aware of the law, the legal categories must be perfectly clear, and a sense of perspective, because it is always important clearly to distinguish between constitutional data and actual policies. Mr Bourlanges’ report will contribute significantly to this. In fact, we get the feeling that this is less a report than the framework for a Bourlanges Constitution.

Political group: ELDR
What is written about the subsidiarity principle in the report could be significantly clearer. The Swedish in the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs have therefore, in the form of Amendment No 5, pressed for the inclusion of the following sentence at the end of section 17: “The application of the subsidiarity principle, as formulated in the Treaty of Maastricht, must be evaluated.” We consider that the time is ripe for such an evaluation and that the European Parliament ought to have written this into its resolution and in that way shown its desire to provide the principle of subsidiarity with more explicit content for citizens in the EU’s Member States. The Swedish view the enlargement of the EU towards the East as being absolutely the most important question for the European Union and will devote themselves to ensuring that the institutional questions are handled by means of a rapid and flexible process, founded upon participation by the applicant States. What with the Swedish translations of the amendments only being fully ready on the same day that the vote takes place, we find the handling, including the political handling, of this important report to have been quite extraordinary, as well as unsatisfactory from a democratic point of view.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think it would be a great shame if Nicole Péry were not also to seize the opportunity to state her opinion now that she is here, so that we might hear her points of view, too.

Political group: GUE-NGL
It is clear that the progress that has been made these last few years on defining and guaranteeing a universal service in the postal sector, as in other areas, such as energy, constitutes a significant advance which we found it very hard to conceive of or even hope for at the beginning of the nineties. I would therefore pass a favourable judgment on this progress: we now have not inconsiderable guarantees on the accessibility and quality of the universal service, in terms of a minimum set of products being supplied as part of the universal service and in terms of the universal service being adaptable to new technology. Nevertheless, there remain some doubts, questions and concerns about striking the right balance between the public service and the market, about maintaining the postal network in our towns and villages and about the tariffs applied. That is why I signed the amendments seeking to have the Commission submit regular reports to the European Parliament on the development of the internal market. That is also why I signed the amendment with the setting the weight limit, as at first reading, at 150 grams (with pricing conditions). I regret the fact that this amendment, which 'guaranteed the guarantees' given by others, was rejected. We will now need to be extra vigilant when the texts are implemented.

Political group: PSE
The promotion of citizenship of the EU, the core objective of this proposal, does not do a great deal for me. In the former Soviet Union, attempts were made to turn the citizens of different federal republics, with different languages and cultures, into Soviet citizens. This was never successful. In Yugoslavia, attempts were made, alongside Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians, to create new generations of real Yugoslavs who were meant to organise the country's future. These people are now second-class citizens. The creation of EU citizens who are constantly on the move between Member States in search of the most privileged jobs, leads to conflicts with their environment and to misfortune for themselves. A second goal of this proposal is to increase the level of participation during European elections. People do not vote in order to meet a ritual obligation which they do not experience as useful. They only want to vote if the body they need to choose has a decisive say and if there is an actual choice between conflicting alternatives. Asking people to vote as an expression of sympathy with a united Europe does not work. If we carry on like this, even fewer people will vote in the next round of elections. I do, of course, support the reinforcement of civil rights, including those of immigrants, and better information about the Ombudsman.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are currently dealing with the challenge of adapting cohesion policy and Structural Funds to an enlarged Union of 25 members in 2004 and 27 members by 2007. The Commission’s own assessment of the increased disparities within an enlarged Union suggests these will be twice what they are at present. In mid-July, shortly after the end of our parliamentary year, summaries of research undertaken under the guidance of André Sapir, an academic, appeared in the press. President Prodi circulated the research to the rest of the Commission. In their work, Mr Sapir and a team of experts openly queried the appropriateness of the current Community budget spending structure, notably as regards the CAP and the Structural Funds. Commissioner, I do not wish to cast doubt on the usefulness of research of this nature. I realise it can prove very useful and lead to improvements. I would, however, like to query the method adopted on this occasion. I am particularly unhappy about the timing. This is because of the resulting uncertainty and the fear concerning the future of the cohesion policy and Community support for the most disadvantaged regions. Enlargement is only eight months away. Regions set to exceed the crucial threshold of 75% of Community GDP as a result of the statistical factor need to know what provision the Commission intends to make for them. The aim of full employment and economic growth must apply in particular to the current Objective 1 regions. That is where growth is slowest and unemployment highest, Commissioner. I therefore ask you to confirm in the House that concentration will remain a valid principle in the future. Structural aid would then continue to be channelled mainly to the most disadvantaged regions of Europe. As we understand it, cohesion is first and foremost territorial cohesion. Its purpose is to ensure that the most backward regions can also benefit from the effects of the single market.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I think we should congratulate Mrs Gillig on this report. European legislation is often poorly perceived by the public and we therefore demand that greater account be taken of people’s interests, particularly to improve social governance and working conditions in the Member States, but also in third countries. We believe it is rather dangerous to say that the greatest concern is that the recognition of a link between trade and social issues could be abused for protectionist purposes or open the door for increased recourse to trade sanctions. Some people believe that social issues are still abusive. Where are they abusive? When are they abusive? We can reaffirm that people use work in order to improve their living conditions and not the other way round. Unfortunately, changes often bring about a deterioration of workers’ living conditions. In the Programme of Action, governments committed themselves to ‘safeguarding and promoting respect for basic workers’ rights, including the prohibition of forced labour and child labour, freedom of association, freedom to organise and bargain collectively’. This is an important point. Slavery is a crime; sexual exploitation is a crime. It is not work. And I wanted us to state this even more clearly. Promoting core labour standards means preventing third countries from being exploited by rich countries. This is, in my view, how we must understand it. At the Nice European Council, the European Union endorsed a social agenda which promotes the concept of quality – in employment, in industrial relations, and in working conditions – as the driving force for a thriving and inclusive economy, with more and better jobs. We are today reaffirming, Mr President, Commissioner, that the universal application of fundamental rights is, obviously, a prerequisite for making progress.

Political group: PSE
This report which I voted against is less concerned with human rights than with ‘communitisation’ or the consolidation of Fortress Europe. The supposed progress achieved in 1999 and mentioned by the report only occurred in the Dublin Conventions and Schengen Agreements and a further action plan from Tampere which all restrict the rights of immigrants. In terms of human rights, this is a backward step. Europe is continuing to expel nationals arriving from countries regarded as dangerous by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Yet some applicant countries in central and eastern Europe are taking in gypsy refugees expelled en masse from Belgium. Kosovo Albanians and Serb deserters are being refused refugee status, whereas Pinochet is calmly escaping prosecution. The Europe of Schengen clearly finds it much easier to hound the persecuted from the south than dictators, even though the UN estimates that we will need 159 million immigrants to maintain a stable population between now and the year 2025. Europe should regularise the situation of all its illegal immigrants and grant them right of asylum and the right to vote in all elections. Only then can we talk in this House about an area of freedom and justice. – McCarthy report (A5-0026/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL