GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we find ourselves faced with the worst situation in the region since the 1967 and 1973 wars. Israel is demonstrating its total contempt for the resolutions of the UN Security Council, for international law, for international treaties and for international conventions. We must share the blame for massacres, crimes against humanity, and the repression and daily humiliation of a whole people if we remain silent and seek a balance between the oppressor and the oppressed. There can be no such balance. What can we do? A great deal, I believe. For example, an embargo on arms to Israel, recalling our ambassadors to the European Union's capitals, freezing all contacts with senior figures in Israel's Government, and lastly suspending the Association Agreement. Commissioner, I am now addressing you as the Commission's representative here, but these words are really meant for Mr Prodi, the President of the Commission, for whom I have enormous respect both personally and for what he has achieved. However, I simply do not understand his statements over the last few days. Let me quote: (FR) Mr Prodi has said, however, that the European Union must not use its Association Agreement with Israel as an instrument of blackmail and pressure. Are war crimes, executions, a war of aggression, destruction, contempt for international law and the resolution of the UN Security Council not grounds enough for suspending this agreement, at least for as long as this situation continues? So does it make us blackmailers, Commissioner, if in the face of a humanitarian disaster – and even the Commission thinks that this is a humanitarian disaster – we enforce the agreement? If we do not suspend this agreement in this situation, what do our other treaty partners have to do for us to apply Article 2? Drop atom bombs? If we do not apply it now, we might as well delete Article 2 for once and all from all our partnership agreements and treaties. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the competition and race for profits that you wish to introduce into the administration of port facilities are already practised in maritime transport. This has led to ecological disasters involving the Erika and the Prestige and finds expression in the employment of seamen at salaries ten times lower than European salaries. When you talk of reducing the costs of port services, you are clearly talking in terms of lowering salaries, cutting jobs, increasing work rates and doing away with the forms of social and wage protection contained in the collective agreements. We are therefore opposed to this European directive, and we call for ports and port facilities, which are useful to society as a whole, to be made a public service. We reject the idea of having dock workers compete with one another on the basis of their status or origins, for that would be to the detriment of everyone. All those who work at ports must benefit from the same conditions of salary and social protection, modelled upon the most advantageous available. With regard to the dock workers who demonstrated before what became a besieged Parliament and were greeted by water cannon and tear gas, I should like you to assure us, Mr President and Commissioner, that the demonstrator who was arrested this afternoon, having chained himself up in the courtyard of the European Parliament, has definitely been released.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Langenhagen for her work on this. Indeed she went beyond the call of duty and applied herself very sincerely to consideration of the Greenland problems and the European problems. Having said that, this agreement should be based on economic criteria. We should evaluate what we are buying, consider the cost of catching it and consider whether the game is worth the candle. We should not get involved in the business of giving aid and buying fish at the same time. It is not the business of our Commissioner for Fisheries to deal with aid to Greenland. In the first place, Greenland was once a Member of this Union. It chose to leave. We do not owe it any economic aid. If it is poor and hungry, let our people in the Commission who consider such problems deal with that. We are dealing with fish. This should be a commercial activity. We should buy the fish and ensure we are getting good value. We have to consider also that we are dealing with countries that are normally weaker than we are. We must ensure that we do not exploit those countries and do not allow our fleets to damage or exploit their fishing stocks. I do not accept that we should charge the ships that specifically go there. When we buy these fish they belong to the European Union and should be shared out amongst the fishermen on the same basis as all the other fish that the Union controls, in order to create a balance. It does not necessarily not make sense for Portuguese fishermen not to go to Greenland. In relation to historic rights, 500 years ago Basque fishermen went to Newfoundland. Fishermen from Bristol went there as well and also fished around Iceland. Today they would not do that because the navies of these countries will not allow them to do so. Historic rights are not necessarily right. Generally speaking, we should apply common sense to today's problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as we all know, reconciling various Community policies is a task that is necessary, but not always easy. To put it simply, when we are involved in the fight against world poverty, our work is not only important: it is crucial. Fish are a universally scarce resource. For the coastal communities of the poorest countries that live exclusively from fishing, it is a precious resource on which their very survival depends. We are, therefore, very pleased with the Commission statement on fisheries and poverty reduction and endorse Mr Lannoye’s report, both of which provide an intelligent definition of principles and suggest options that will enable us to reconcile supply for the Community market with the catching, processing and marketing of fish from the countries with which we have fisheries agreements. There is a wise Chinese proverb, which teaches that acting responsibly involves ‘not giving a man a fish but teaching him how to fish’. This proverb is also applicable here, but with some changes because the fish we catch in other waters belong, first of all, to other countries. Promoting scientific research into resources and the equal sharing of this knowledge with developing countries, aid for the organisation of local communities that depend on fishing, improving and promoting mechanisms for regional cooperation and support for fighting against flags of convenience and illegal fishing are, therefore, only some of the measures that show that the course of action now being proposed is the right one for us to take together.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the point of the special summit in Lisbon next week is to define the European way in the future world of employment. How can we become more competitive? How can we create new markets? How can we create permanent, more highly-qualified jobs? We can take one of the leading roles in tomorrow’s global information society, provided that we learn the script. Europe has talents. Europe has skills. Occasionally we lack competent directors to motivate us. I personally feel that it is important for broad target groups to take an active part in these serious changes. They need to familiarise themselves with the Internet and data bases from an early age. Mrs Hieronymi pointed that out. Schools without computers must become the exception. We need a qualification offensive with computer-aided learning and active use of networks. The European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is calling for the information society to become the common property of all citizens, including the socially weak, the disabled and older people. The pace of change is hotting up in the European economy. Undertakings are subject to constant restructuring, new holdings, strategic alliances and friendly or hostile takeovers. The consequences for both employees and managers is the same: greater mobility and faster and faster adjustment. Independence is increasing, as is pseudo-independence. Within companies, responsibilities are changing. Teams have shorter and shorter sell-by dates. That has repercussions for the internal composition and the representation of the interests of employees. Many companies are too small to set up works councils or are so large that relationships are not even forged and employee representatives become roving ambassadors. People in ICT professions who have a great deal of freedom, analysts, engineers and creative planners, want to be their own bosses. They are fighting for new working time regulations and new variable contract-based tariff and remuneration systems. In addition, trade unions in other areas fear that unregulated structures will spread and social standards will drop. Citizens must be familiar with new forms of work and working relations in the information and communications industry, be they in the hardware sector, the software sector, services or consultancy. Once they are able to share in innovation, once they can be won over by the information society, then it must be made clear that this is a success or an advantage not just for private- and public-sector undertakings, but for consumers and employees alike.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I voted against Mr Fiori’s report. Why did I vote against it? I am in favour of scientific research, but I am worried. Why am I worried? I am worried that if we change the genes of human beings, tomorrow there will be something very important missing on the human face and in people’s lives. What is more important than anything else in people’s lives? Love, Madam President! What if, tomorrow, we have human beings who are not capable of loving, of expressing love in all its forms? What future life will our children and our children’s children have? That is why I am against any kind of manipulation of the origins of human life.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish government on assuming the presidency and wish them all success during their six months in office. They have a formidable task ahead of them and I welcome the top priority that they have given to completing the enlargement negotiations by December. I support the sentiments expressed recently by the Danish foreign minister, Per Stig Møller, when he underlined the need for the EU to deliver on its promises to the applicant countries. However, we also have a moral obligation to honour promises already given to existing Member States. The proposals currently being considered by agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler, as part of the CAP mid-term review, are a betrayal of the Berlin Agenda 2000 agreement. New proposals on modulation and the de-coupling of livestock premiums in favour of a system based on area-based payments spell disaster for EU farmers. As much as 20% of farmers' total direct payments would be clawed back and transferred to some rural development measures or returned back into the CAP budget itself. As grain and livestock producers are now totally dependant on direct payments for their incomes, the new proposals would put them out of business. Farming incomes have already fallen. Agriculture is the cornerstone of the rural economy in Europe and rural development will be a meaningless platitude if farmers are penalised and impoverished by the implementation of the proposals currently leaked by the EU Commission. Preparing for enlargement by penalising farmers is morally and politically wrong and could well result in alienating them from the enlargement process itself. Instead enlargement should be financed from within the current budget by increasing spending to existing threshold limits. At the moment, the budget is being under-spent by as much as 20%, totalling some EUR 25 billion. By using these monies, the EU would be demonstrating its political will to proceed with enlargement with conviction and on time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is pleasing that, despite certain delays and problems, the peace negotiations are going on both between Israel and Palestine and between Israel and Syria. The moment of truth is approaching. Is Israel prepared to comply with the UN’s resolutions and, in exchange for peace and security, hand back the Arab areas which were conquered in 1967? Will Israel let Palestinian refugees return or be given compensation? Will Israel share Jerusalem and the water of the River Jordan? Will a free Palestine be a truly democratic state and, therefore, reliable as a partner in peace? Will Syria fully accept Israel’s existence and introduce democracy and the rule of law? The fact that the main responsibility for the peace process lies with the occupying country, Israel, does not prevent the Arab partners from also having a considerable share of the responsibility. Peace in the Middle East concerns us all, however. It is therefore good that the EU should act as a godparent to the Palestinian state. Against this background, I want to conclude with a remarkable story from Sweden where an international Intergovernmental Conference on Hitler’s extermination of the Jews is being held, which is obviously a welcome initiative. Of 47 states invited from all corners of the world, not one of them, however, is an Arab state included in the EU’s Barcelona process. This has been interpreted as indicating that the Arab attitude towards Israel should be regarded by Europeans as being similar to the Nazis’ anti-Semitism, which of course is completely incorrect. The Arab world’s criticism of Israel has been founded upon the same sort of anti-colonialism as, for example, Algeria’s fight for freedom against France. But today, Egypt, Jordan and Palestine have peace treaties with Israel. I therefore wonder whether Commissioner Patten does not agree with me that it would have been only right and proper to have invited at least one Arab state to the holocaust conference in Stockholm.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Many thanks, Mr Barnier, for coming on behalf of the Commission to answer this question, which is very important to us. But I think, Mr Barnier – and I am sorry to say this – you are not very well informed. Perhaps the lack of staff you have just mentioned exclusively devoted to the Cohesion Fund – who did exist in the former Commission – prevented you from having more concrete details. According to the details I have, and after what you said in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Planning, I know that Portugal has already submitted projects that exceed the Cohesion Fund in both the transport section and the environment section. You know that this fund has always been very well managed by the four countries and has always had 100% take-up rates. You must be very concerned to know why countries that have always complied so well seem not to be complying now. I think the ball is in your court: your staff have the details, but they must be allowed to provide an answer. What I am afraid of, Mr Barnier, is that the Commission may be taking the opportunity to cut the Cohesion Fund appropriations in the 2001 budget. We will not accept that!

Political group: PSE
British Labour MEPs had to vote against the amended report due to serious concerns about duplicating and complicating legislation, a reduction in resources for Asia, and benchmarking. The Parliament has an agreed position in favour of simpler rules and procedures, and it makes no sense for a technical, legal regulation to do the work of Country Strategy Papers and National Indicative Programmes. Creating two separate regulations will undermine the objective to streamline and clarify development policy programmes and, as the world's poorest region, transferring funds from Asia to Latin America cannot be justified. We could not support Amendments 1 and 2 to split the Regulation; 93 and 94 to reduce funding for Asia and increase funding for Latin America; 3, 18, 56 and 97 on benchmarks and a Bi-Regional Solidarity Fund for Latin America (creating a cumbersome and wasteful extra layer of bureaucracy); or 18, 28, 29, 56, 57, 95, 96, and 99 which create a rigid framework for programmes intended for poverty reduction. It remains to be seen what the implication of today's vote will be in the Commission and Council. The result could be that we have not served the interests of either Asia or Latin America.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission communication bears the words ‘status of work on the examination of a proposal for a framework directive on services of general interest’, a phrase which I feel is something of a provocation. We do not need an examination of the need for a framework directive; rather, what we need is for the Commission to present a framework directive, in accordance with Parliament's long-standing request that it should do so. If examination is what you want, you should read the Langen Report, the thirty-five pages of which will give you a detailed explanation of why we need a framework directive of this sort. We therefore demand that the procedure be speeded up and that Parliament's resolutions be acted upon. Commissioner, there is such a thing as the Lisbon process, which speaks unambiguously in terms of the European Union having social cohesion as its objective. In my view, services of general interest serve that social cohesion. A large proportion of services of general interest are provided on a voluntary basis and not only as a main job. They contribute to a higher degree of humanitarianism, and, as a rule, they are at home in the area between the state and the private sector. The support they receive from the state is not to be regarded as state aid, and they are private, although not wholly subject to competition law. It is for this precise reason that we need a legal framework that provides legal certainty. Christmas being only a few days away, I would like to extend the warmest thanks to those who work, whether professionally or voluntarily, for the common good. Without them, our society would be a colder place, and the European social model would be unworkable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, our children access and use televised, printed and new media on a daily basis and as a matter of course. Information from all over the world and from every sphere of knowledge is delivered to the home in record time and our children can communicate all around the world on an everyday basis. At the same time, a huge selection of different entertainment programmes is available to them, usually without any controls. Aside from all the positive aspects, we must not disregard the negative side-effects of this ease of access. Children are being faced day by day with a growing wave of media brutality and violence, which is simply too much for them, especially because no limits are imposed on these offerings. So all those concerned, starting with the children, via the parents, the teachers, the countries, the European Union and, beyond them, the suppliers and producers must come to grips with this question and learn how to deal with these offerings and their effects. The public must be made more aware of the effects of this constantly growing wave of violence and support measures must be taken. Parents are in particular need of help here, and in the following form: parameters to protect minors in the media context throughout the European Union, the introduction of filter systems available at low cost, legislation to protect minors and assumption of responsibility by the media, enterprises and private and public-sector providers. These measures must not be restricted to television but must apply to all accessible media. The candidate countries must of course also be integrated in this process even at this stage. Since the media market is a matter of supply and demand, i.e., a question of hard business, the providers pay no attention to the consequences of various offerings. All that counts is the ratings. So we must introduce protective mechanisms that are impossible, or at least not easy, to circumvent. Furthermore, I believe programmes that help reduce and overcome violence and aggression should also be on offer. No doubt they could not be marketed so spectacularly and would therefore produce lower ratings, but in return they could make a considerable contribution to damage limitation and to combating the adverse effects. We are responsible for ensuring that our young people can shape a future society in which violence and aggression are not presented as hip or cool or as examples to be copied but as deeply reprehensible. We have to match up to that responsibility by adopting the appropriate directives and providing the necessary support.

Political group: PSE
The aim of this report is to take up the cudgels for a better information and communication strategy for the European Union. Why not? If the goal, however, as stated in one paragraph, is to convince all Europeans of the virtues of the European Union in the field of ‘security, solidarity, equal opportunities [and] cohesion’, this is not a good start. No communication strategy, for example, can hide the fact that one in every eight workers in the Union is doomed to unemployment, and many to poverty. If the European Union were to implement a policy opposing mass redundancies, by obliging employers to use current and past profits to ensure that jobs are maintained, and if unemployment were to be reduced as a result, a communication strategy would not be necessary: word of mouth would suffice!

Political group: GUE-NGL