GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union and Parliament have been squabbling for years over products from the territories occupied by Israel, which are wrongly being given the same preferential treatment as products from Israel itself. Israel does not want to make this distinction, but the European Union does. Politics lies at the heart of the debate. The European Union considers the occupation of the territories in question illegal, and that is why we have made such a problem of this matter. However, the debate, which is in essence political, risks being overrun by scores of practical and legal aspects. The problem, and the reason I am asking these questions now, is that the Commission and the Council, tired of years of squabbling, are now threatening to go along with current practice. This would legitimise an illegal practice, and Member States would lose the legal basis for continuing to make a distinction between products from Israel and those from the Occupied Territories. Hence, I have two questions for the Commission. The first is: what steps does the Commission intend to take by November of this year, when a new Commission takes office, to put an end to the current practice, and when, precisely? The second is: can the Commissioner guarantee that every decision he takes that could have an impact on the spirit, the letter or the practice of the Association Agreement will first be submitted to this Parliament for its opinion?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Βrok is right to say that we are that much wiser now as regards the docking of pigs' tails. But we still have not worked out how to cut the Gordian knot around Kosovo, despite numerous attempts. Ladies and gentlemen, if a neutral observer were to come to every sitting of the European Parliament, he would conclude that we are a monotonous lot. FYROM, Kosovo, former Yugoslavia. Our obsession with this subject basically illustrates that we are at an impasse. We must find a way out of this impasse. Meeting after meeting, prime ministers, ministers, representatives, visits, but still no results. Today we are being asked to approve more financial assistance for Kosovo and we must approve it so that we can help the people working there to resolve the problems. But, you see, every irregularity in the area as a whole emanates from Kosovo. In other words, maybe we are providing a safe haven there, from which various terrorist groups are able to organise terrorist attacks on the area with impunity? We have witnessed the end of the Milosevic era and that is a good thing. But immediately afterwards we witnessed a development in southern Serbia, a half-hearted attempt at destabilisation in Montenegro, which proper intervention halted. And then, you see, there was the threat in southern Serbia that the Yugoslav army would return to the border. Perhaps we should now allow the Yugoslav army to proceed to the border with Kosovo, as provided for by the UN, perhaps this threat can be partly defused? I find it really strange that, with thousands of soldiers in Kosovo, it is not possible to close the border, it is not possible to seal the border and prevent FYROM and the area as a whole from being destabilised. It is most strange. If one soldier were to sit next to another at five-metre intervals, they would form an unbroken barrier at the border. So in this sense, it is good that the political efforts being made on all sides are accompanied by grim determination. Because, you see, any continuation of this instability in the area will lead nowhere. If some people think that new nation states are going to emerge from this tragedy, they are wrong. The area is so badly fragmented by minorities, which in some places have the majority vote and in some places have the minority vote, that we shall end up with federations of villages, with federations of towns if we are to be able to say that there is some sort of cohesion. In other words, if anyone ever dreams about ethnically clean areas, they will look like DNA diagrams. In this sense, I believe that, apart from financial assistance, we need pressure, pressure and political unity to stabilise and develop the area, and we need political solutions within existing borders. And that is what we must secure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am of the firm opinion that this draft directive is a major step forward. That said, restrictive conditions are still being placed on the process of family reunification. I believe we should be highlighting the fact that, in the final analysis, it is unemployment and insecure employment that should be banned and not the right of immigrants to live with their families only if they can provide evidence of adequate means and a roof over their head. For the nationals of a country, society makes progress slowly, but it does make progress, witness the PACS vote in France, but the notion of the family in the case of immigrants is inflexible. The laws in force provide for the right of residence to be revoked if there is a break-up in the matrimonial household, effectively outlawing divorce, and, as has just been said, homosexual couples are still not recognised. Under the pretext of combating polygamy, second spouses and their children are condemned to illegality and to even greater dependence. Family reunification must be liberated from the archaic conditions that still exist as a result of fanatical immigration control. In conclusion, Mr Watson’s report has fortunately made real progress following the work in committee on the initial report by Mrs Klamt. I am bound to say that, when I hear Mr Gollnisch’s racist, reactionary and unacceptable comments, I want to vote for this report. It is a question of dignity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I am not among those who usually thank rapporteurs for no reason, but now there is genuinely cause for saying thank you. It is a special pleasure for me, who have had the privilege of knowing Mrs Aaltonen for a long time, to congratulate her on her first report here in the European Parliament. She is a positive person who has fought many important political battles for young people, women and, now, the handicapped. It is a privilege for the European Parliament to have access to her knowledge, energy and experience. These qualities have really been of value in the preparation of the report. I am also grateful for the fact that Mrs Aaaltonen has taken account of my proposal concerning the issues of genetics. Pentti Tienari, a senior lecturer in experimental neurology in Finland, has researched into these matters, and the fact is, unfortunately, that there is a background of genetic factors. The Vikings are suspected of having spread the disease because it mainly occurs in Orkney and Shetland and also in the area around the River Kyro in Finland. The disease also exists where Germanic peoples have been on the move. I hope that continuing research will also take account of this genetic factor. I also wish to say that the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, which is usually scrupulous about the issue of subsidiarity, will for the most part approve all these amendments. It is said that the Member States must cooperate, and I believe it is important for the Member States to cooperate in order to arrive at binding standards. It may be possible for this to happen outside the structure of the EU, for example through cooperation between ministers in the framework of the Council of Europe. It is there that we should produce binding recommendations on health care. We ought to have a precise division between the EU’s and the Member States’ respective areas of competence.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, let me speak in English to spare the interpreters. I can only be dismayed and also somewhat amused by the very odd performance in this House by my honourable colleagues in the Berlusconi group. There are very serious parliamentarians – grave to the point of sounding ponderous – like Mr Podestà, who is also Vice-President of this House, suddenly behaving as if they have gone into a rhetorical spasm, with Mr Tajani transformed into the Incredible Hulk and many other respected Members of this House beating their chests like King Kong. What has happened? Obviously, the gentleman in Rome has issued some very precise orders to his group, which he is quite entitled to do, and the order is to stop the report by Mrs Boogerd-Quaak at any cost. Filibustering is more than understandable and more than justified, even as some acceptable form of obstructionism; but I wonder whether we have not gone too far, beyond the rules and traditions of this House, with these continuous attempts – and we will see many more before tomorrow, because rumours circulate very fast in this House – to postpone consideration of this report and take it off the agenda. Let me say that I disapprove of this behaviour – not because I belong to a nostalgic Communist group or am a Bolshevik, as I have been called, but because I still respect this House, its traditions, its standards and its rules.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to use my speaking time to call for a reform of the CAP that does not again overlook those regions of the Union that have climatic and environmental conditions and farming traditions that are particularly appropriate to multifunctional rural development. These are regions whose farming consists of small and medium-sized family holdings, based on land and pastures, regions that have considerable milk-producing capacity and which, because they did not have the necessary milk quota when they joined the Community, have undergone a Malthusian modernisation, which has led to the disappearance of tens of thousands of holdings. Today, these regions receive practically no production subsidies, which means that they would not receive decoupled aid either. They form part of States where there is an enormous deficit between milk consumption and production. I am talking about Galicia, but I am not only referring to my own country; I am talking about countries that need their milk quota to be increased, countries that could provide for their internal markets without calling European balances into question. I hope that these are not ignored once again in this reform of the CAP.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly I must thank Mrs Belém Roseira for taking part in this debate and for her interesting speech on the subject. I must also thank the Commissioner for being here and for her words. The various political groups generally agree on the easily verifiable observation that women are under-represented in the decision-making process, in both the political and the economic and social spheres. Nobody nowadays disputes that women should participate in political life, in the parties and in the institutions but it is not easy to agree on how this participation should be achieved. The equality between men and women which most affects the lives of women and therefore society in general is equality in work. This involves both equality in accessing work, which implies equality in training, and equal pay for the same work, so often defended and yet far from being achieved. We are convinced that the participation of women in the decision-making process will be beneficial to society as a whole. Women always have a different viewpoint from men. This serves to enrich and complete the picture of the best solutions to the problems in daily life which people like us, who are dedicated to active politics, undertake to solve. The difficulty lies in finding the right solution to allow women to have a greater presence in positions of responsibility and therefore in decision making. In some countries of the European Union a compulsory quota formula has been adopted which immediately produces a more equal presence of women. However, this is not always the best solution as there are not always enough women ready to enter a difficult and competitive world which they regard as essentially masculine because it has traditionally been reserved for men. Women are not participating in political parties and in the working and social world at a level of fifty per cent. The real percentage is much lower and it is this participation at the grassroots which we must promote in order to ensure a greater presence of women. There must also be a clear and real will to allow more women, who are ready and able, to assume responsibilities and commitments in political life and therefore in the decision-making process. There is no clear agreement within the Group in support of the compulsory quota system. Some Members have even come out against this. Personally, I would not want to feel like a quota, to think that I was in a particular job because I was a woman. This is a feeling which men will never have and it is an important difference.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am pleased to say that I, together with a number of other colleagues from my Group, fully back the initiative which Mrs Buitenweg has taken. Needless to say, we do not aim to sabotage the work. This is why we announced this action a long time ago – the Conference of Presidents were made aware of it six weeks ago – and neither is this any reflection on today’s agenda, of course. I think that the outcome of the quorum count is sufficient reason for the Conference of Presidents to revise the agenda for 2001, but at the moment I would like to ask you the following: according to my interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, the request for the quorum means that none of the votes can take place. If this is not the case, Mr President, I would ask you to check the quorum before we proceed to vote on the Maat report. (More than 32 Members rose in support of this request) (The President established that there was not a quorum)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate the French Presidency of the European Union on its ambitious approach in all areas and for its intention not to end the Intergovernmental Conference with a minimal agreement, but with results which make enlargement a real possibility. Due to time restrictions, I will only refer to three points. Firstly, closer cooperation and integration. They will only be useful, Mr President, if four conditions are met: firstly, the Community dimension of the Union must be increased, rather than the intergovernmental dimension; there must be more integration, not more cooperation. Secondly, the existing institutions must be used, not replaced with new bodies. Thirdly, we should not have cooperation or integration of a variable composition, since that would mean a Europe á la carte, that is to say, an ungovernable Europe. Fourthly, in the same way, we should prevent this leading to factions or closed blocs which would divide the Union. In other words, we want closer integration which is open to all current and future members of the Union. My second point relates to the functioning of the Euro-12, which must be improved, but not by reducing further the current democratic deficit. The Commission must therefore have genuine powers for making proposals, and not only for recommendation, and Parliament must participate seriously, starting with consultation, but extending to codecision. My third point, Mr President, is that I am also one of those who believes that we need a Constitution for the Union. My question is, why not take a first step now by approving the basic treaty prepared in Florence on the initiative of the Commission? This does not change anything, but it does mean something very important: that the citizens may finally become aware of which system is governing them. It would at least be a step forward in terms of this clarification which we are all requesting, but which we never get to see, at least with regard to something which must not be forgotten, Mr President, i.e. the distribution of competences in the European Union. We are leaving it for the future. Is the ratification process in certain countries not going to jeopardise this? I leave that question open. I will end here. The ambitions are fine, but we want facts and we expect to see them at the end of the French Presidency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, within this disordered debate on certain aspects of immigration, we are dealing with a proposal for a directive of great importance because it attempts to regulate the fair and coordinated efforts which the Member States are obliged – and I stress, obliged – to make to receive displaced people and refugees from third countries. Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a humanitarian problem of the highest order. Nobody wants to abandon their land, their culture or their family. The first question is therefore how to understand and show solidarity, so that we can assist these people and make their terrible situation less burdensome. As well as immediately meeting their humanitarian needs, we also face the problem of where to place these refugees, as this debate is demonstrating. Is it a proper solution to distribute them numerically according to a system of quotas, thereby replacing the two-fold principle of respecting the will of the Member States and of the refugees themselves? I sincerely believe not. Would it not be fairer to use the European Fund for Refugees, as Spain proposed, and give it more financial resources than it has at the moment, in order to help the Member States receiving more refugees? I believe so. The problem is also that a great number of asylum requests are rejected because they do not come from genuine political refugees, but from economic immigrants. As is also being demonstrated here, we are facing a very confused debate in which there is no definition of the different types of economic immigration as opposed to those involving asylum for humanitarian or political reasons. The issue is to resolve the problems created by the current asylum procedure, and thereby make the number of asylum seekers much more reasonable and make the distribution of responsibilities fairer. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that those people who have committed criminal acts for supposedly political reasons have been excluded from temporary protection. This is a further step by the European Union in the fight against terrorism. The amendment presented in committee by the Spanish delegation of our group endorses a vote in favour of the report despite some of our reservations on certain aspects of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to add my voice to the messages of condolence and thanks to the honourable Members. Europe has been affected in an incomparable way by the problem of flooding and must be part of the solution to this immediate problem we are facing. Therefore, the urgency demanded by the honourable Members and assistance which goes beyond mere words are the two elements that are absolutely essential for this Parliament to demonstrate. Mr President, fresh money is needed to provide aid; not just the money planned for, but new contributions. We must bear in mind that this House has contributed for many years to the 1.27 limit of the European Union’s budget never having been used and therefore a substantially smaller proportion than that has been used. I believe that Mr Barnier has introduced some absolutely essential considerations and details. I am a member of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and it is clear that flexibility is fundamental in reprogramming, that the efficiency reserve must be used for this task, revitalising small and medium-sized businesses, which are the driving force for normalisation and recovery and that prioritising the defence of our infrastructures must be an essential element of the new priorities. Mr President, I will end by saying that, while we have been able to save for many years, solidarity now requires that we be generous.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, maladministration is not confined to Brussels: all political structures are imperfect. Man is fallen and some people will sometimes give in to temptation. What is peculiar to Brussels is the way in which allegations of malpractice are dealt with. The usual response of the EU authorities, faced with evidence of corruption, is not to address the issues raised but to impugn the motives of the critic. Thus we have seen the disgraceful way in which Paul van Buitenen and Martha Andreasen were treated and the extraordinary arrest of Hans-Martin Tillack. In the looking glass world of Brussels, it is not those engaging in fraud who are harassed and bullied, but those exposing it. This inability to handle even the most narrow and qualified criticism can be seen in the reaction to the censure motion on which we have just voted. Rather than accepting a mild rebuke, the EU establishment went into overdrive, cajoling and threatening the various signatories in an attempt to prevent the motion from seeing the light of day. Any lingering doubts about whether the motion was justified have surely been removed by the attempts to smother it. I hope that people beyond this House will extrapolate from what has just happened. If this is how the EU administers itself, are we wise to invite it to assume control over huge new swathes of our national affairs? If this is how Brussels exercises the powers it currently has, what are we thinking of that we should be proposing to give it new ones? My masters, are we mad?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, presenting a common position for second reading could be seen as a purely technical, tactical move to bring us closer to implementing the decisions. However, in this debate, as many other speakers have said too, a number of key points still have to be defined. Indeed, although the Council has incorporated most of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament at first reading, the Sixth Framework Programme lacks specific working time frames and its strategic objectives need to be defined in more practical terms. We must not forget that this programme will have to operate over a decade or so, and so an approximate work schedule and poorly defined aims are completely unacceptable. In particular, the European Parliament’s latest amendments call for more decisive, tougher action against the danger of pesticides – this applies both to the present Member States and those waiting to join the Union – again, there must be a substantial effort to combat the greenhouse effect, the increasing sound pollution that pursues us all the time, wherever we go, the too frequent environmental disasters caused by human negligence, disasters for which it is becoming increasingly difficult to find out who is responsible. Lastly, once again, the European Parliament’s amendments seek to make some of the proposals already mentioned practical reality. I just want to summarise them under at least four basic headings, four areas which have been defined as priorities: climate change, biodiversity, the connection between the environment and human health, and waste disposal. These issues are so vitally important that anything less than total precision and total responsibility on our part would be absolutely unacceptable, and we cannot put off dealing with them to a later date as the Council seems to want to do.

Political group: PPE-DE