GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in common with the EU Member States, the European Parliament has a responsibility to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms and rights. At the same time, there is a dangerous tendency to put democratic freedoms such as freedom of expression and thought and the freedom to vote, on an equal footing with far-reaching social requirements. This weakens the basis of democracy. If all rights are equally important, no right is in the end especially important. An annual report by the European Parliament is of doubtful value if it is a spectrum of subjective views. Political wish lists easily result in new topics being lighted upon instead of there being a focus upon the really fundamental rights. In tackling these issues from a perspective other than that of this broad spectrum of views, I am amazed that there are no rights to good governance and democratic elections. These rights should be more to the point than many of those included in the report. It has become apparent that existing Member States too need to be reminded of them. The EU should impose sanctions on Member States that fail to uphold democratic elections and in which there is proven electoral fraud. The Convention should reflect upon these issues. There are, however, positive new things in the report worth mentioning. Data protection and transparency are included. Rights to these must be developed in the Treaty. Data protection and the right of access to documents are included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The time is now ripe for citizens’ right to information under Article 255 of the Treaty to be made more specific. In conclusion, the European Parliament has an important role to play in issues relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms and rights. I hope that the Convention consolidates this role by creating a democratic system of decision-making and a right for people to go to court and, in certain cases, obtain damages if their rights have been infringed. The issue clearly needs to be explored further. Mrs Swiebel has made this clear. That is good, but there should preferably be a more concentrated approach next time, with the issue explored more deeply rather than just broadened out. We must clearly develop our methods for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor. Mr Duisenberg, I had a small supplementary question to ask you. You quite rightly said that the Treaty only provides you with limited powers in the area of banking supervision. However, Article 110 provides you with the possibility of drafting recommendations and submitting opinions. Are you going to make use of this power conferred by the Treaty?

Political group: PSE
start of speech inaudible) ... which will be of benefit only to that minority of the population which has capital to invest and move around. The package of proposals just provides one more illustration of the fact that the European Union has been built exclusively in order to favour the movement and investment of large amounts of capital and, as a corollary, small amounts. Yet this concerns the majority of the population, as it is their money that the European institutions count on using in order to fund the measures to facilitate private investment. The people who do not own capital but who pay the bulk of taxes, largely through indirect taxes such as VAT, will therefore have to fund the subsidies and tax deductions envisaged for investors and the tax advantages granted to stock options. The plan is to favour pension funds, but that inevitably means favouring pay-as-you-go schemes. The money which ought to be used to provide a decent retirement pension for all will then be used to enable a minority to make greater private profits. We consequently refute, in its entirety, an approach designed to take even more money out of the pockets of the working classes that form the majority of the population in order to siphon it off towards holders of capital.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, since December 1991, Algeria has been in a situation of permanent violence. According to the official figures 100 000 people have died during that period, which represents around 1 200 deaths per month, and the figures that the non-official organisations are giving are even worse. In April 1999 the new President, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, ordered a partial amnesty, a law of civil concord, and promised fundamental reforms in order to put an end to the ongoing crisis in the country. So far, however, this policy has had a very limited effect. It does not seem to have been accepted as a true policy of total democratisation and reconciliation. The terrorist activity of the violent fundamentalists has continued, and the situation has been aggravated by the violence of the last few weeks in Kabylia, where demonstrations by hundreds of young people, following the violent death of one of them in a police station, were very violently suppressed in a real bloodbath, which left more than 60 young people dead from police bullets. The situation is really very critical. It is, of course, an Algerian problem, which can only be resolved by Algerians and between Algerians, through a process that democratically restructures and gives greater legitimacy to the institutions and the State, through the agreement of all the political and social sectors who reject violence, from whatever source, and which can, in the face of the violent fundamentalists and also the sectors of the current ruling power that are resistant to change, achieve greater transparency and the participation of all the peaceful forces in the reconstruction of the country. This is a very complicated and difficult task, and the European Union should not miss the target in its support for those in positions of responsibility in the country, supporting all those who are coming from the point of view of peace and democracy. We should act without seeking to interfere, but with firmness and a positive spirit to promote human rights and the democratic process. Tomorrow, a delegation from this Parliament will travel to Algeria. I hope this debate will help to clarify our attitude, which is an entirely positive one, supporting the whole democratic political field in the country, in the institutions and in society, in finding a way out of this violent situation when there does not seem to be one.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, very briefly, to discuss the process by which the White Paper came into being and to enumerate a number of facts that illustrate why a White Paper on youth policy is absolutely necessary. We all know that 75 million of Europe's citizens – in which I include those of the enlarged Europe – are young people between the ages of 15 and 25, but the falling birth-rate and simultaneously rising life expectancy mean that our society is getting older. The proportion of the EU's overall population between the ages of 65 and 90 will rise from 16% to 21% between 2000 and 2020, whilst that of 14 to 24-year-olds will be as low as 11%. This disparity in numbers between young and older people will bring about considerable change to relationships at various levels. We need to find answers within our own society in order to meet these challenges. We too are called to take measures to accompany and support young people above all, in order to avoid social tensions and also adverse effects on our education systems and the labour market. After all, the present system of European cooperation on youth issues has been stretched to its fullest extent and can no longer cope with the problems that have to be tackled. We all know that investment in the young means investing in something that will make up the wealth of our society both today and in the future. As my lady predecessor on the floor said, youth policy falls mainly within the competence of the Member States. The new White Paper on youth policy is meant to point the way towards a new kind of European cooperation in the youth sphere. It is indeed the case that the White Paper is as yet far from ideal, but it does need to be implemented as a matter of urgency in order to increase young people's involvement in the integration of Europe and in shaping our future. The White Paper is a logical step for a forward-looking youth policy. I would like at this point to thank Commissioner Reding for her initiative in the past, but above all for her commitment and for the way she got to grips with the task of listening to young people and involving them directly. I see that as the right step on the right road, as youth policy, policy for young people, cannot be made without young people; it must be made with them. Even if the White Paper is not yet perfect, it is, as I have said, a step in the right direction. On behalf of my group, I ask you to support it when we vote tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
This text resorts to a jumble of meaningless phrases in an attempt to paper over the differences between the medium-sized powers in the European Union. One of these powers backed the United States to the hilt by taking part in the invasion of Iraq, whilst the others adopted a more prudent approach. It is true that the discrepancies between the policies of both sides are now diminishing. Given the present difficulties of the occupation, the United States needs more forces on the ground. Member States are becoming more favourably disposed to supplying such forces on condition that this is done under the aegis of the United Nations. For our part, we are opposed to supporting an aggressive, imperialist war, even after the event. Likewise, we refuse to support the occupation even if it were under the auspices of the United Nations. Not a single person from the European Union should leave their homeland to promote the interests of the great imperialist powers in Iraq! Down with the imperialist war and occupation!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is unfortunately the story of a so far unfulfilled commitment, which I will comment on later. I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa, for being so willing to incorporate all of those amendments and issues which we in the Socialist Group have wanted to raise in order to supplement this excellent report. In reality, the work in committee has been a complete collaboration between all the groups, and I hope that the House will reflect this in its vote this morning. We have managed to achieve compromises on almost all aspects of a problem which has become very serious, because it affects the great majority of women in the associated countries of the Mediterranean. It is true that there are slight differences between the various countries, but, in general, the situation of women in these countries is of great concern: illiteracy, early school leaving, unemployment, violence against women and health problems, originating from their reproductive health and the lack of adequate services for women. The report exhaustively describes all these situations. The European Union and the Member States must renew their commitment to the women of the Mediterranean countries. In very many cases, cooperation agreements do not fulfil the commitment to deal with the special situation suffered by these women. It is what we call “the transverse introduction of the gender perspective', because the situation suffered by women is not the same as the situation of men and therefore it is necessary to analyse what this situation is from the outset, in order to provide the tools necessary to resolve it. Unfortunately, the regional programme within the framework of the MEDAs has once again been delayed and therefore this report is going to see the light of day long before this regional programme is implemented. I hope that by then we can take up the fundamental ideas contained in this report. Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot continue to lament the situation suffered by women in many countries of the world, especially in this region which is so close to us, without taking action. It is an urgent issue and we must promote the necessary mechanisms in order to ensure that the lives of women in these countries really becomes better and easier. We must restate this commitment because there is no more time and we have to act.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your reply, although I regret the fact that this working group has taken so long to meet, since this matter is of the greatest importance. We trusted this Commission, from the outset, to begin work on all issues relating to greater equality for men and women. I hope that, in the future, things will change and meetings will become frequent, because there are many issues which require the attention of the Commission in order to speed up and conclude, as quickly as possible, those measures which will promote greater equality between men and women.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it seems as if the world is turned upside down. Journalists are sent to prison for simply speaking the truth, whilst soldiers who are supposedly fighting each other exchange smuggled goods in the bar in the evening. This is Angola’s reality. We are now expressing our horror concerning this war. Three million victims, two million driven from their homes within the country’s borders, hundreds of thousands driven away across its borders, including women and children. This is a war which transcends its borders. It is not just UNITA which is to blame. The government too is responsible for this continuing violence. This is why we insist that the journalists – more than 20 were imprisoned last year – keep speaking their minds. We would, at the same time, like to insist on other things. We want the UN embargo, which is supposed to prevent a large proportion of arms and ammunition from being flown across to UNITA airports, to stop. But what do these sanctions mean? It is the western world itself which is partly to blame. It is we, our own people, who keep the war going over there. The so-called civilised world should hang its head in shame. This is also the case for the so-called statutory government which is just as guilty, because if this journalist has accused the President himself of deriving benefit from this civil war, then all he is doing is voicing what the entire world knows already and which is being passed on to every tribal district across Africa. Mr President, we are partly to blame for this war. We should stop financing this regime and we should certainly stop supplying arms for the war.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have already given notice that I want to give an explanation of vote concerning the resolution on the Middle East peace process. The European Parliament has previously expressed its support for a Palestinian state and reiterates this in paragraphs 2 and 3 of today’s resolution. As a Swedish Christian Democrat, I consider that the European Union can contribute to a lasting peace in the Middle East, ultimately based upon democracy, political pluralism, respect for human rights, the independence of the judiciary and a social and ecological market economy. This can happen through the EU acting in such a way that it inspires more faith and confidence than it does today among the population in Israel, the Middle East’s only democracy. To mention, therefore, in paragraphs 2 and 3, the question of the possible foundation of a Palestinian state does not contribute to the process of creating confidence in this way. American political leaders have never come out in favour of a Palestinian state but, at the same time, have a lot of credibility in the region as peace brokers with constructive contributions to make. The European Union could also take on such a role. Today’s statement about a Palestinian state does not increase the possibility of the EU being able to do this in the future. I have therefore abstained from voting in the final vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is the first explanation of vote which I have given in many years and my first explanation of vote as chairman of the Group. Unfortunately, our Group was unable, for a number of fundamental reasons, to vote in favour of the Ludford report on countering racism and xenophobia in the European Union. We take the view that a good cause, namely the fight against racism and xenophobia, is being abused for extraneous objectives and that the report deals with topics which have nothing to do with racism and the fight against racism and xenophobia. Most of our group therefore abstained or voted against. Our reasons were as follows. Firstly: the Ludford report flouts and violates the underlying principle of subsidiarity by calling in points 4, 6, 27 second indent, 11 and 20 for measures such as the recruitment of third country nationals to public office or formal requirements to change curricula and teacher training programmes. Secondly: the report deals with matters which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the report by calling in points 19, 22 and 30 for measures such as rights for third country nationals to vote in local and European elections. Thirdly: the Ludford report addresses matters which lie outside the time framework of the report and have nothing whatsoever to do with the report. And I want – and I would prefer if more people listened, especially those who are about to leave – I want to highlight the absurdity of this report and I regret having to say this about this report in particular. Its absurdity lies in the fact that not only fewer than one-third of the members voted, but a statement was made about a Member State of the European Union, namely Austria, a statement to the effect that Parliament subscribes to the sanctions of the fourteen Member States. (Protests) Parliament decided by a large majority, following a passionate debate in February in Brussels, not to subscribe to these sanctions and today, with such a small minority, with so few present, we are subscribing to these sanctions. There are two reasons for this: first, because it is an issue which is extraneous to the subject of the report and, secondly, because we are dealing with an issue which was decided a long time ago by a large majority. I consider that unacceptable. My Group has therefore been compelled either to abstain or to vote against the report. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before we vote on the resolution as a whole, could you please confirm that the President of Parliament has ruled that the words 'and accompanying explanatory statement' in paragraph 5 may be deleted?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one minute is not long to discuss the enormous problems facing the large and densely-populated country of Nigeria. We were present as guests along with the ACP conference when Mr Obasanjo 'replaced' the military set-up with a democratic system. Hope was strong and sincere. But since then thousands of people have died in ethnic conflicts and all manner of violent clashes. We were also in Kano, in the north, where a wonderful Islamic culture is flourishing and had the opportunity to compare this culture with that of other regions in the south. But this astonishing diversity of tribes, ethnic groups and cultures risks being submerged in severe armed conflict. Oil, which ought to be this large country's blessing, is in fact a curse because it is used mainly to buy arms and set up one power base against another. Smaller groups, like the Ogoni people, are at risk of becoming the victims of all this. I believe that we must take Nigeria seriously in the context of the ACP and that we must closely monitor what is happening in this large country, because it is a kind of Africa in miniature. I hope that the recommendations contained in our resolutions, focusing mainly on the danger of intolerance, the danger of Sharia law in those countries, stoning women and so on, are taken to heart because there is a risk that the whole situation could degenerate further if we are not much more closely engaged in dialogue, but also with strong sanctions if the rules are flouted.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to raise once again the point I raised on Monday and again yesterday with regard to Mr Helmer's comments in this House. Can I say that I am surprised that on two occasions now I have asked Mr Helmer to comment on the item about the Queen of the United Kingdom supporting the euro, and so far he has failed to do. Can I say to this House that I understand this must be the first time that Mr Helmer has been speechless. (The Minutes were approved) ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper 'Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport'. As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Agriculture Committee wishes to address the Council and express its fundamental opposition to the cuts across the board that the Council is always making. We see this, in political terms, as a rather unimaginative way of handling Budget guidelines. We are working on the assumption that the letter of amendment will be the right basis on which to adjust individual areas in preparation for second reading. Apart from that, we hold to our demand for agricultural expenditure to be made more flexible in future by enabling the transfer of funds from the mandatory to the discretionary division. We know how complicated that is and how many changes have to be made, but we will carry on demanding this whenever budgets are laid before us, until our demands have been met. The Commission's proposal on the introduction of a reserve meets with our explicit support. That is needed. We are sure that we do not have to explain why it is necessary. We also assume that the Commission will act responsibly if it becomes necessary to make use of it. Our colleagues on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have just spoken about tobacco. We too on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development have had to return to the tobacco issue. We are most dissatisfied with the inadequate use being made of money from the Tobacco Research Fund. On the Agriculture Committee, we, too, are fed up with forever flogging a dead horse where this subject is concerned. We have, on the one hand, the demand for preventative health education, and, on the other, the need to promote tobacco growing. We must, though, face reality. For as long as we have farmers who grow tobacco – and they are not the richest – and have no alternative crop to offer them, we cannot help them. This sector therefore needs possible alternatives not only to be examined, but also offered. Most of all, I would like to say something more about SAPARD: we are glad that the appropriations have been increased, but, like the Commissioner, we are critical of the way the Council has cut by EUR 100 million the amount of funds SAPARD is authorised to pay out. This is not on! It is absolutely not on! Please, Commissioner, let there be no fear of a new implementation along the lines of LEAR. Take your courage in both hands! Let me take this opportunity to thank the general rapporteur for working so well with me and my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee.

Political group: PSE