GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, our Group, the – , fully supports the report by Mr Menéndez del Valle and we take a very positive view of the effort made and the various suggestions provided by the different political groups in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy; we therefore believe that Members like these are needed in the European Parliament. The European Union now needs to make its voice heard in relation to the conflict which has the greatest effect on our current and future stability. We have seen the complete failure of the Sharon approach, supported by the United States, which consists of using violence as much as possible in the form of state terrorism, which puts him on the same condemnable level as the Palestinian suicide groups. We in Spain, where we suffer the murderous terrorism of ETA, once fell into the temptation of employing state terrorism and that led to more violence and even a degree of moral legitimacy for the terrorists, and we therefore had to return to the path of respect for the Rule of Law, which is much more effective and dignified. The current spiral of violence gives credibility to both the Roadmap and the initiative of 4 November, in Geneva, of a determined and courageous group of Israelis and Palestinians who are not resigned to the situation, who know that all violence, on either side, represents failure for everybody, and who represent the hope that the only solution applied to the Roadmap is the existence of two States: Israel, a homeland for the Jews, and Palestine, a homeland for the Palestinians. Respect on the part of one people for another and vice versa, the recognition of the rights of refugees, Jerusalem as a dual capital for both States, an end to the unjust occupation of Palestine by Israel, ending and dismantling the Israeli settlements and, above all, removing the wall of shame which is so reminiscent of the ghettos, all of this with respect for international law and the UN, which incidentally sponsored the creation of the State of Israel.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, perhaps there are others in this House who, like me, paid regular visits to Zimbabwe in the early 1980s and were able to discover at that time the kind of country it was. It was a land full of hope, the civil war was over and people wanted to embark on a new future. The oppositions between white and black would cease to exist. If we look at what has come of these plans twenty years on, we see chaos, poverty, possibly famine in prospect, no press freedom and certainly no democracy. Of course, Europe cannot stand idly by, just as it could not in the past. I think, however, that Europe, in particular, must encourage Africa to condemn Mr Mugabe, because if we are not careful that situation may spread to other countries in the region. What are our options according to my group? In the first place, we have to suspend aid. Food aid will be a different matter. If the reports are correct, Zimbabwe’s self-sufficiency may already be under serious threat, and this will certainly be the case in future. If that happens, food aid will have to be given, but of course it must not be distributed via the government bodies, since we know what will happen to it in that case. It must be distributed by independent organisations. We should also like an investigation to be carried out into what kind of sanctions can be used against Mr Mugabe and his clan personally. Can we take steps against possessions that they have in Europe, such as the freezing of bank accounts, etc? Finally, I should like the Commission to investigate whether the rumour is true that people from Zimbabwe enabled to study at European schools and universities, are mainly selected from the circles of Mugabe and his henchmen. Is that correct and does the Commission intend to do anything about it?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, first allow me to thank my fellow member, Felipe Camisón Asensio, for his report on behalf of my Group. He has drafted it very carefully. He did not succumb to the temptation to open the door to subsidies still wider; on the contrary, he kept it where the vice-president suggested. The vice-president and Mr Camisón Asensio were streets ahead of the European Council. We may, nonetheless, quote the European Council. The European Council stated in Stockholm that we need to reduce the scope of state aid in the European Union and to make the aid system more transparent. And that is precisely the objective here. I think that, in replacing the old Regulation No 1107/70 with the new regulation, we have indeed made the system more transparent. As regards the use to which it is put, I believe that aid only compensates so-called unpaid costs in connection with the development and use of transport infrastructures. This poses a problem, because it is not clear exactly what external costs are. Let me give you an example: the theory that it is always better, for the purpose of environmental protection, to shift freight from the road to the railway does not automatically apply. We are debating noise in the vicinity of airports, we are in the process of banning night flights. Just think about when you hear a good old freight train in the middle of the night; it is loud, it stinks and the brakes squeal. What I mean is that, when it comes to questions such as 'What are external costs? How can they be scientifically defined? And how can they be apportioned?', we still have our work cut out. I am delighted that the report says as much. It is work which the Commission has yet to do and I am keeping my fingers crossed that the Commissioner will be able to do it soon.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, on behalf of my colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I would like to thank Mr Clegg for the work he has done and his cooperation in enabling us to bring our own ideas into the report, and also for pushing the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy to take the initiative. Many of us worked as rapporteurs or shadow rapporteurs on the electronic communications package of legislation over two years ago and it is important that we continue to show our political support and sustained engagement. After all, we all put a lot of work into it. We know it is in the implementation phase now, but it sends a clear signal that this Parliament is extremely interested in what we regard as one of the most important pieces of internal market legislation and one that enhances competitiveness. Competitiveness is absolutely crucial to the current agenda. I would like to highlight one or two points that the Committee on Legal Affairs considered in relation to our work on the universal services and users' rights directive. Firstly, we thoroughly endorse the Commissioner's opening statement about avoiding over-regulation. One specific measure in the universal services directive is aimed at ensuring that Member States do not intervene directly in the retail market to try and cap prices unless they have exhausted remedies at the wholesale level. They must be asked to keep that in mind and act on it. The second point is a practical one: we have put a lot of work into our directive on tariff transparency and publication, to encourage Member States particularly to address the issues of tariff transparency and comparison for private consumers and for small businesses. Unfortunately I have not seen a great deal of evidence that Member States have really taken that on board and I hope that will be picked up in the Commission. We would encourage you, Commissioner, and your team to pay close attention to this whole transposition, to make sure that we get the maximum benefit from this very important piece of legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a supplementary question along the same lines and I would ask the Minister if she would be prepared to reply to it. It follows on from some of the comments and questions that have been asked already. I come from Wales, a nation with four times the population of Luxembourg, which is of course a EU Member State. Now in its November resolution on governance, Parliament stated categorically that it will welcome proposals from the Convention to redraft Article 5 of the EC Treaty to include a specific reference to the function of constitutional regions within Member States. This repeated a resolution of the previous October which stated that the Treaties should be amended specifically to recognise and respect the political and legislative powers of the internal nations and regions. Is the Council aware of these resolutions and if not, will it seek to ensure that attention is drawn to them during its deliberations at Laeken?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the row between Europe and the United States over the International Criminal Court constitutes a threat to the European Member States' common foreign policy. A few weeks ago, things looked set to end in complete disaster when Italy and Great Britain threatened to conclude bilateral agreements with the US, as a result of which certain countries, including the US, or groups of citizens, including American military, would be permanently excluded from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Signing an agreement of this kind must be viewed as detrimental to the agreement of the International Criminal Court. I am referring in this respect to the sound legal advice gained by the European Commission. Fortunately, the United Kingdom and Italy ultimately did wait for a European consultation, and we in Parliament are now able to give our opinion on this matter in advance. The International Criminal Court's very existence is on the line, as destructive bilateral agreements undermine its raison d'être. However, the question also arises again of whether Europe is able to speak with one voice. Not only as a trading power, but also as a bearer of values and standards in this rough and unsafe world, one that protects human rights and the international rule of law as a whole. A divided Europe, in which some Member States want to take advantage of Article 98 to permanently exclude the US or US citizens from prosecution – so including Al Qaeda terrorists with an American passport – damages our ideal of a Europe that contributes to peace, stability and security worldwide. According to the ICC Treaty, all nations, including the US, can, and must, tackle their own human rights violators themselves for the first nine months. Only when this proves unsuccessful, will the International Criminal Court become involved. It therefore depends on national efforts whether the International Criminal Court should actually intervene. This should be sufficient guarantee for the US too. Europe should therefore remain unyielding and continue to speak with one voice. This is why I would ask Member States to abandon destructive bilateral agreements with the US, and urge the Council to remain united.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let me begin by saying that it is in itself a good thing that the rapporteur should focus attention on the problem of the consequences of globalisation for female immigrants. However, I have some misgivings, because what is the purpose of this report? The previous speaker made this point. Does it contribute to the finding of work, and if so, how? The problems are certainly not limited to women from Mediterranean countries. Women from other parts of the world often have to contend with the same problems. In addition, it is not the case that the European Parliament has not concerned itself with these problems before. I think, for example, of the reports on trafficking in women and the communication from the Commission on a Community-wide immigration policy, which will shortly be discussed in various committees in the European Parliament. My group therefore considers that this report is, in fact, too immature and too superficial to provide a substantial contribution to the discussion. There are also a number of shortcomings in this report. I shall mention a few. Naturally we agree with gender mainstreaming in this field, but I have problems with the text: in Section 15, the Dutch version speaks of the “channelling of migratory flows to Europe”, while the English text refers to “quotas of migratory flows”. Channelling migratory flows is just about acceptable to my group, but the introduction of quotas is definitely not. A second point. Internally the European Union has still not solved the problem of the recognition of each other’s national professional qualifications and titles. That is, of course, crucial to this problem group, which is why, during the discussion in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, the Liberals invited Member States – also in the context of immigration from Mediterranean countries (and, in fact, from all countries) – to recognise professional qualifications and titles. But I find the proposal contained in the report to set up, especially for immigrants, an information office on domestic services, very odd. It sounds very limited. Surely it is not just a matter of cheap domestic help? A third point. The report talks of Euro-Mediterranean citizenship. Does such a thing exist? Will we have Euro-ACP citizenship or Euro-Mercosur citizenship? Because the European Union has entered into treaties with these countries too. And what kind of status will such a citizen have? A higher status, or a lower one? Such a measure might well lead to discrimination. And I could go on. My group therefore concludes that while it is in itself useful for the problems of women immigrants to be highlighted, this has been done previously and better. This report is too superficial, too one-sided and bears the marks of a one-sided approach to a very vulnerable group. As a result, my group finds itself obliged, despite the improvement introduced by us, to withhold its support from this report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group, I would like to pledge our total support for the Commission communication and the implicit decisions to reinvigorate the Euro-Mediterranean policy. As has already been said, after eastward enlargement, this is becoming an absolute, essential priority, a duty we cannot shirk. To all the reasons for this which have existed thus far must be added the tragic war and terrorism in Israel and Palestine. We are currently faced with the proof, with constant confirmation of the fact that, if Europe does not become more involved and establish policies addressing the root causes of the region’s instability and lack of development, well then, we will be unable to prevent either real or potential conflict or its uncontrollable consequences such as illegal immigration. I therefore look forward to a more effective European Union policy on the Mediterranean; I welcome the idea of exporting the method of European integration, starting with the promotion of a genuine area of free trade facilitating as much south-south trade as possible, even above north-south trade. The plan for funding this process, through specialised sections of the EIB now and a Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank in the future, must be welcomed with open arms. However, where the Mediterranean is concerned – and I would stress once again, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis is evidence of this – we need to go deeper. This means concentrating now on recreating the necessary conditions and developing the dialogue between cultures and religions, a dialogue facilitating that mutual awareness and understanding which – we must realise – is no longer sufficient to avoid conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds, between Europe and the other Mediterranean cultures and between the Mediterranean cultures themselves. Good intentions or occasional interventions are not enough to achieve this: we need ongoing work with a lasting impact. That is why I feel I must support and call strongly for the immediate initiation of the work of the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation mentioned in the Commission communication. The Mediterranean is steeped in history and full of symbolic places in which the intercultural and interfaith dialogue has developed over the centuries. I come from a city, Venice, which has a tradition in that area, and I am sure that, if the Foundation taps into all these energy sources, the many energy sources present in the Mediterranean, the many tales and experiences of cooperation and understanding, we will certainly be able to address the root of the matter. We tend to see the cultural element as an optional extra in our programmes, as something which is second to politics and the economy, but in this case it must be given pride of place for it is the very foundation stone which will make it possible for politics and the economy to play their role too.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the rapporteur on Latvia's application for membership of the European Union, Mrs Schröder, has made some very important and pertinent observations. They also seemed to me to be very critical. That is why, with your permission, I should now like to highlight two positive points which present the overall picture in a perhaps more favourable and also, in my opinion, a more realistic light. In many reports – and the same is true of the report on Latvia's application, there is a statement at the beginning which is simple and which is important but which cannot be taken for granted. Latvia satisfies the political criteria for membership of the European Union. This simple sentence represents splendid achievements, achievements which deserve respect and recognition. In the light of the difficult situation which these countries were in at the outset and the complicated basic conditions, satisfying the first Copenhagen criterion is a remarkable result. This is especially true for the three Baltic states which, compared with all of the other candidates, were forced to a far greater degree into the totalitarian structures of the former Soviet Union. This applies particularly to Latvia, given the complicated ethnic make-up of its population. It is precisely against this tragic historical background that the systematic and continuous efforts of its parliament and government to integrate all of the country's inhabitants into society deserve our respect and support. Latvia is also an excellent example of how clear political prospects for the future can strengthen and accelerate social and economic development. On 15 February 2000 the accession negotiations were formally opened. In the same year, growth of 6.6% in gross domestic product was achieved and in the first quarter of this year growth even reached 8.2%. These are just a few of very many other indicators which point to the opportunities – the opportunities to create political stability and economic dynamism – which enlargement brings.

Political group: PPE-DE
Why is Europe silent about human rights in Tunisia? Is it on account of the stability and economic progress which this holiday destination enjoys? Is it because of the political links with France or the European s? Or because it has adopted a constructive stance in the peace process in the Middle East? Or do we see Tunisia mainly as a bulwark against the rise of Islamic fundamentalism? At any rate, President Ali only has the religious fanatics in mind. He seems to be obsessed by them. But this concern is more of an alibi than a justification for the human rights situation in his country. Not only Muslim fundamentalists, but all political opponents are systematically silenced. Tunisia calls itself a democracy, a democracy without opposition that is, without freedom of the press, without fair judicial processes and with torture and the elimination of political prisoners and their families. Tunisia has concluded an association agreement with the European Union which contains a clear human rights clause. There can, of course, be no question of President Ben Ali’s claiming rights under the agreement but shirking his obligations under it. If the violations continue, the Treaty will unfortunately need to be suspended. Would Commissioner Patten agree with me there? Tunisia is the first Mediterranean Sea partner with which this association agreement has been concluded. Given its economic development, it can act as a model for the entire region, but it should then, of course, meet the political criteria. The European Union cannot allow one agreement partner that which it denies another. The Association Council must, therefore, look into the human rights situation as a matter of great urgency and draft a democratisation programme. If the European Union keeps quiet any longer, it will be partly responsible for the human rights violations in Tunisia.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I follow Mrs Attwooll as one of the other Members for Scotland in this House. I am very grateful to Mr Watson and to the Liberal colleagues who put forward the questions which promote this debate today. It is a vital debate. To try and make the point Mrs Attwooll was making yet more vivid, 30 miles away from the house in which I live in Edinburgh, midway between Edinburgh and Glasgow, at the town of Motherwell, lies the most northerly freight outpost of the trans-European network into the United Kingdom, the Motherwell Eurocentral depot. We have been told in recent weeks that the carrier out of that port, EWS, will not be able to afford to continue providing a service out of Scotland at the current available number of trains per day. It would be a crisis for Scotland, and therefore a crisis for transport across the Union, if that happened. It is well known, for example, that the Scotch whisky industry depends heavily on rail freight to get malt scotch and blended scotch into the European market. Heavy losses are being made on a vitally important trade. In these circumstances it is encouraging to be told that the Commission takes this matter seriously, but it is not encouraging to be told that all will be well by June, because the information we are receiving from the commercial parties involved is that they cannot last until June at present levels. This is a time when people throughout the European Union people are asking themselves the question: Do we obtain the benefits which we are promised from our membership of the European Union? These benefits particularly relate to the opportunity to trade freely across the Union. Other benefits which have been promised are those arising from intermodal transport – that not everything should go on the roads. That affects not just people in Scotland; it even more affects people down the motorway routes through England, if far too much heavy freight traffic goes down there. We need traffic on the railways. We also need traffic by sea. We are very grateful to Commissioner de Palacio for the work she has put into securing the new ferry link between Scotland and Zeebrugge, but if we are going to have a sensible transport policy which really does spread the load and save the roads from excessive use by heavy traffic, we must have this railway line kept open. I am grateful to colleagues who have raised this question. I am grateful to the Commission for taking it seriously; but I want to know as well what compensation will be available to ensure that those who have lost money are not prevented from trading altogether by the uneconomic conditions now prevailing on this route.

Political group: Verts-ALE