GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I too should like to express my deepest disappointment at the fact that we proved unable to agree on a joint resolution of the European Parliament, despite the fact that today's debate shows that there is common ground, that there are the materials to build a common European identity. An identity that can offer politics, logic and culture against the violence and the social and cultural barbarity being promoted by the new military doctrine of the United States. The European Union has a duty and an obligation to study in depth the new international situation being created by American expansionism and the untrustworthiness of the neo-conservative American leadership. We have a duty to demand answers to questions which still remain open: First, about the blatant violation of international law with an aggressive war; secondly, about the attempt to deceive public opinion about alleged weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be the lie of the century; thirdly, about the barbaric looting of cultural treasures, and I hope that no museum will dare receive the stolen goods; fourthly, about the annihilation of hundreds of civilians, about the destruction of infrastructures, about the bombing of television stations and the murder of journalists and, last but not least, about the war unleashed by the United States against the United Nations. Certainly, the collapse of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein cannot be used to whitewash the Americans and their allies. Finally, I should like to stress that the worthy women of Iraq can make a decisive contribution to the ending of the chaos in post-war Iraq, to the reconstruction of the country and to the future democratic governance. The presidency and the Commission must demand the immediate application of unanimous UN resolution 1325 calling for increased participation and representation of women in all decision-making centres at all levels. And finally, we hope that on 21 June the European Union will exert its influence so that decisions are taken that will implement the road map, so that a fair solution can at last be found to the question of the Middle East and a climate of trust can be restored with the Arab world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it would indeed appear that the Chechen war in Russia is also part of an election campaign, although there may be many other reasons for it. The Russian action there seems to be taking the form of actual persecution of the civil population. This is to be condemned once and for all, and this will lead to a situation before long in which we have to cease providing aid to Russia. The cessation of this aid will obviously affect the poorest and those who need help most, it has to be remembered. I am looking for a way out. Could we imagine a conference being organised for the whole Caucasus issue, as there are military operations going on there within the territories of at least five states, and not just in Chechnya, about which my colleagues have spoken? The example of Armenia – the murder of the Prime Minister a few hours ago today – is again a deplorable indication of that. The other possibility is that Russia turns the main weight of its attention from the south to the north, which is much richer in natural resources than the south, with no conflicts or dangers. This again would be one way of finding a way out of the difficulty. Is the Commissioner ready to support this sort of northern dimension action?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as was mentioned before, this is indeed a welcome agreement. I much enjoyed working with my colleagues, Mr Gargani, Ms Frassoni, Mr Swoboda and other colleagues in the Council and Parliament, even though it was a painfully protracted process. We arrived at an agreement which is a lot better than many of us expected at the beginning. As has been said by a number of speakers, it is not a perfect agreement. No agreement is perfect. It is a bit of a mixed bag. As Monica Frassoni said, there is a bit of 'blah blah'; there are some slightly vacuous passages, but there are also some incredibly important procedural advances. For a minute or two I should like to focus, if I may, on what happens next. There is no point in reaching this agreement on paper after all these months of protracted talks if we do not transform the advances we agreed upon into a practical effect as soon as possible. I should like to emphasise two aspects where I think we need to look for follow-up as soon as possible. Firstly, paragraph 36 of the agreement says that 'within six months of the date upon which this Agreement comes into force, the European Parliament and the Council, whose task it would be as legislative authority to adopt at the final stage the proposals for simplified acts, need to modify their working methods by introducing, for example, ad hoc structures with the specific task of simplifying legislation.' That is a very important objective and it will be quite tricky to achieve. I urge both Parliament and our colleagues in the Council to make sure that the deadline of achieving the process of simplification is indeed met within the six months specified here. I should also like to refer you to paragraph 30. It deals with something that everyone knows is close to my heart, which is the advance I hope we will make in conducting impact assessments across all three institutions. The text says 'As soon as possible after this Agreement is adopted, the three Institutions will carry out an assessment of their respective experiences and will consider the possibility of establishing a common methodology'. Monica Frassoni's commentary on this agreement is absolutely outstanding in its clarity and fairness except in one respect, where I think she is a little negative about the potential of reaching agreement on impact assessments. My own feeling is that there is simply no way that we will achieve the general principles referred to in the common objectives in the agreement - namely legal certainty, the promotion of simplicity, clarity and consistency in the drafting of laws - if we do not make rapid progress – as called for in paragraph 25 – in establishing a common methodology to have environmental, social and economic impact assessments, not only attached to draft proposals from the Commission, but also in significant amendments tabled by ourselves and by the Council of Ministers. I hope that there will be some sense of urgency over the next few months to achieve real, practical progress on the back of the agreement, and especially on these two important objectives of simplification and impact assessments.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I have a question concerning the complete report of the meetings: last Wednesday evening Vice-President Onesta announced that a vote would be held on Thursday morning on an urgent debate on the European arrest warrant. However, on Thursday morning, Mr Watson, chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, asked the plenary meeting to vote on an urgent debate on – I quote now from the complete report – “two framework decisions from the Council, one on combating terrorism, the other on a proposal for a European arrest warrant”. Confusion abounds. It proves in particular that last Thursday’s decision was taken too hastily and carelessly. Can you explain to me, on the basis of the complete report of the meetings, on which topics precisely we are to hold an urgent debate? And since we are on the subject of clarification, can you also assure me that the text on the European arrest warrant on which we could submit amendments up to 4 p.m. last Thursday is still the same text and was not changed last weekend? If that were the case, we would again be making incredible fools of ourselves today.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as Mr Provan pointed out, the two institutions with responsibility for adopting this directive, Council and Parliament, are divided. In the Council, a minority opposes it and Parliament is divided more or less down the middle, given that in the delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the final evening of debate, the voting was concluded with 8 votes for and 6 against, with one Member abstaining. I would say that the divisions now also extend to the various political groups. My own Group will decide this afternoon on how it will vote, which means that until tomorrow we will probably not know for sure whether or not the directive will be adopted. I should like to begin by saying that I disagree with Mr Provan’s assessment of a possible rejection of this directive. Because the problem we face is whether, as a consequence of the directive being adopted, European businesses – as Mr Lehne pointed out – could be held to ransom by the major international financial operators, who are known colloquially as the ‘Sharks of Wall Street’. This is the danger we are currently facing and, as a Member of this Parliament, I state my intention, of course, to vote against the directive, because I believe that the danger of our businesses being devoured by these financial operators, and of being stripped to the bone if they have assets – I am talking here about heavily capitalised companies – immediately condemning workers to unemployment, is much greater than the alternative danger, which is that the operation of the internal market may be impeded. As Mr Lehne pointed out, the Americans themselves have adopted the rather expeditious solution of having at least one State – Delaware – in which highly capitalised companies can be based and where the monitoring of these companies by financial sharks can be prevented. With regard to public opinion or the press, I also disagree with Mr Provan, because his words do not match what is written in the newspapers that I read. In my opinion, a vote against, at this time, by the European Parliament on an issue as important and significant as this would enhance the prestige of this institution. Because the information that I have from governmental institutions indicates that many governments would probably change their position within the Council if they were aware of the impact of this issue on the business world and, above all, on the unions. Now, in the formula laid down in the proposed directive, the workers are the unwanted guests. The workers are invited to the table but they cannot join in. They cannot take part in the meal and cannot take part in the decision-making. They are simply informed of the decision that is to be taken and, once it is taken, the document provided by the workers is just seen as another document – similar to what the Council does when Parliament has a consultative role – and then the decision is reached without any account being taken of the workers’ opinions. I and most of the Members of the Socialist Group will, therefore, probably vote against adopting this directive.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the first amended budget for 2004, which is to be voted on shortly, relates to the accession of the new Member States on 1 May this year. The Committee on Budgets has already approved this budget unanimously and, in principle, Parliament as a whole rubberstamped everything as long ago as December last year. For legal reasons, we now have to make this official, which can be done presently. I should like to point out that the observers in the Committee on Budgets have played a very active and constructive role in drawing up the budget with regard to the new countries, and we as the Committee on Budgets have increased certain payment appropriations. Some people in the Council always think that Parliament is too generous when it comes to money and has, so to speak, a hole in its pocket. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that with the enlargement through the accession of ten new countries, the percentage of the gross national income that is spent on the European budget is 0.98%, the lowest percentage since 1990. This leads me to think that Parliament is good with money. If you will be voting ‘yes’ – and I hope that you will do so in large numbers – then nothing will stop us financially from including all new Member States in the European Union on 1 May of this year.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there can be no compromise with those who hate freedom and democracy. There can be no tolerance of the intolerant. That said, we have more work to do to win hearts and minds in projecting a vision of Europe and the United States as beacons of human rights, non-discrimination, respect for difference and understanding of criticism. It is a paradox that young people in Africa and Asia gaze longingly at the American way of life while damning the United States as the 'great Satan'. We must show, for instance, that we understand the difference between religion that is moderate, reasonable and compassionate and the dogmatic fundamentalism that exists in all religions, not just Islam. But we must make a special effort to keep up a dialogue with Muslims and include them in European societies. We must demonstrably treat others as we wish our own citizens to be treated. Would it not have been a magnificent gesture and morally right to have offered to airlift out all the local victims of the Bali bomb, to show that we were not just looking after rich white westerners? Maybe it is still not too late to do something. The international fight against terrorism inevitably overlaps with the question of combating weapons of mass destruction. We are all conscious of the present developments regarding Iraq. The danger is that any pre-emptive action in the form of a war of conquest geared to regime change will leave the United States looking like an imperialist power in the Middle East. The backlash could create a whole new cause célèbre for terrorism. We must ensure openness and respect for liberty and democracy in the adoption of anti-terrorism measures, but in the 30-page terrorism roadmap you will only find Parliament mentioned four times. The Council is negotiating agreements on mutual legal assistance, extradition and exchange of personal data with the United States, involving Europol-FBI cooperation. In principle, that is fine, but there is no democratic or judicial scrutiny. Although the subject matter is justice and home affairs, where there is normally some parliamentary input, external agreements are negotiated without parliamentary scrutiny. This is unsatisfactory and weakens our claim to be defending liberty and democracy. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I do not wish to speak on the subject of the debate. I merely wish to say that no Member of this House has the right to single out any fellow Member with that sort of remark. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Europe has undergone substantial change over the last ten years. The development that began with the turning point in autumn 1989 has reached a stage of controlled progress, thanks to the determined policies of the European Union. We have laid down clear guidelines for Europe’s development, but there is work still to be done. The Intergovernmental Conference, the reality of a common foreign and security policy and the controlled realisation of enlargement are matters that have to be thoroughly prepared for, both in the applicant countries and in the European Union. These areas form an important whole on the agenda of the Helsinki European Council and, as has been said here, this whole is so dynamic that if everything succeeds, the Helsinki meeting will be an historic event. The importance of these matters means that it is vital that Parliament also debates the issue thoroughly. We are now in a situation where, for the first time, full consideration must be given to the Treaty of Amsterdam in a meeting of the European Council. The President-in-Office of the Council’s excellent speech fully covered the questions and challenges of a common security and defence policy for the Union. We should point out that the Helsinki Summit will focus on the European Union’s policy on the northern dimension and hence bring about more solid tools of stability and security for the northern part of Europe. When we speak of security, peace and stability in Europe, we should not forget, however, the factors that have an impact on internal security in society. A respect for fundamental rights and aspirations towards social equality are the best defence policy for ensuring social stability. The European employment policy and the guidelines on employment for the year 2000 to be discussed at Helsinki as a part of that policy still belong at the top of the Union’s agenda. The defence of democracy and the prevention of extremism are the basis of social justice, which means, among other things, combating unemployment. Finally, I would like to express my sincere congratulations to the country to hold the presidency for having succeeded, with no amendments to regulations, this has not yet been possible, in clearly increasing transparency in the decision-making process in the European Union and especially, in the European Council. Hopefully, future countries to hold the presidency will carry on the good work. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have to restore public confidence in aviation and we have to let the market decide what happens to the airlines themselves. Restoring public confidence means getting security screening right and improving the quality of staff, training, job procedures, pay and conditions. It means, perhaps, ensuring that there is a state-run security operation at airports and paying accordingly. That may well create more jobs. So far as the airlines and their financial viability are concerned, we do not want more intervention, more bureaucracy and more delay. We need targeted assistance in areas like insurance and the cost of security. We must let the market decide what the future of the airline industry shall be. As was said earlier, Sabena made a profit in only one year out of the many years that it has been in existence. Aer Lingus, Alitalia, Air France and KLM are not far behind. Why the devil should we support Aer Lingus when Ryanair can make money without any difficulties at all – like Easyjet, like GO, like Buzz? All those airlines can make money at a difficult time. Why should we therefore bail out the Sabenas and the Aer Linguses with their overcapacity, with too many routes, too few passengers and too much state pride? I have two specific questions that I wish to ask the President-in-Office of the Council. Firstly, I am led to believe that there are problems with the Sabena slots that have been offered, in Britain, for example, to British Midland and British European Airways. They may have them for a short time but there is some suggestion from the coordinator that they may be lost in six months time if DAT is reformed and wants those slots back. That is unacceptable. If Sabena cannot fill those slots then others should be allowed to use them. Secondly, what is being done to ensure that the staff at Brussels airport does not restrict the movement of those new-slot airlines as a result of picketing and delays at the airport? We need guarantees of freedom of movement on the ground as well as in the air.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the reason for the motion of censure, its signatories argue, is the scandal and the irregularities which have taken place in Eurostat. Everybody is aware that for some time we in the Committee on Budgetary Control have been working very hard to try to clarify this issue and resolve the problems stemming from it. It is true that the Commission took a long time to react, but it finally did so and implemented an in-depth reform and, so far, we believe that the results are satisfactory. It is true that the case is not closed, since a judicial procedure is underway. The majority of the political groups have therefore prepared a resolution which will be voted on during tomorrow’s sitting, precisely because we are still concerned about such an enormously important issue as fraud in Eurostat. We do not believe this issue to be closed, and we believe we must monitor events very closely in order to prevent any repeat of it in the future, either in Eurostat or in any other Commission body. The resolution various groups will table tomorrow makes it very clear that Parliament is vigilant, is carrying out its duty and is exercising the control conferred on it by the Treaty as a fundamental Community institution throughout the procedure. There is no justification for this motion; it is a purely electoral issue for the signatories, who have in common, amongst many other things, their anti-European sentiment and militancy, their Euroscepticism and their constant campaign against the European institutions. We therefore believe that this motion is inappropriate. We in the European Parliament do our work, we have done so seriously and rigorously, and we are going to continue to do so, and we do not believe that a group of Members who call themselves anti-European and Eurosceptic are the right people to defend the transparency and smooth functioning of the European institutions. In our work, we have often insisted that it is necessary to trust in the control of the Commission’s management, as we have done this morning, while making it clear that we are still concerned about the problem of Eurostat, and we therefore believe it is entirely inappropriate for small groups in this House - whose record and approach in relation to this issue have been very well-known from the outset and have never changed - to try to use this issue for electoral party political ends. They have taken no notice of explanations or solutions, nor any type of suggestion. The position of the People's Group is very clear and we will continue to work to ensure the openness and transparency of the European institutions and also to strengthen them.

Political group: PPE-DE