GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is more than 50 years since we adopted the Declaration of Human Rights, but we probably need to ask ourselves whether the human rights situation has in actual fact improved. That is not an easy question to answer, but we know more today than we once did, thanks partly to the many NGOs and journalists who constantly report on human rights violations around the world, and knowledge is a prerequisite for action. But there is, in fact, an obligation to act upon information, so that not to do anything is to let down those whose rights are being violated, and in this area the EU has an independent responsibility. As many speakers have mentioned, the EU has quite a high profile in the area of human rights, and that is both a good and a bad thing. It is crucial that we are consistent and specific. In relation to Central and Eastern European countries, we have had success with our policy, which can probably best be characterised as an iron fist in a velvet glove. However, that is not enough, for human rights violations do not, of course, stop at Europe’s borders. Therefore, it is also gratifying that we have focused on human rights in connection with the new ACP-EU partnership agreements. However, we must be certain that we are in a position to follow through and take action if it proves that human rights are being violated. If we have to introduce sanctions in Central and Eastern Europe, then everyone will be affected. The situation of the developing countries is quite different in this respect. If we are obliged to introduce sanctions, which more often than not will only affect the poor sector of the population, we therefore need, where developing countries are concerned, to establish a special strategy with regard to sanctions so that we do not only hit those we really wanted to help, as well as those who have suffered in the past. This constitutes a very large task for the EU as a whole and also for the European Parliament. We must be clear which sanctions are to be imposed. However, it is of course crucial for us to work with human rights more generally so that we can obtain some comparable figures, for Parliament is inclined to intervene as soon as we hear that a human right is being violated somewhere or other. When we go out into the world, we must try to be very specific and see what the human rights situation is like in the countries concerned. We can organise meetings with human rights activists and human rights organisations in the area and we can arrange for the final report to deal with human rights issues. I should like, in conclusion, to say that those areas dealt with in the resolution are important, but that they are not, of course, the only areas demanding our attention. That is why I have touched upon a number of other areas today.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is tempting to present the recent political events in Côte d’Ivoire as the victory of democracy over dictatorship, as a repeat performance of the Belgrade scenario, but this time taking place in the heart of West Africa. It is tempting, but it would be wrong, because the reality is rather more complex and the position of the new president is quite a lot more controversial. Naturally we welcome the fact that junta leader Gueï failed in his scheme to legitimise his power through sham elections. The European Union, and also this Parliament, made an important contribution to this by demanding that democratic elections take place and instituting the suspension procedure. But that still does not give Laurence Gbagdo, who won the elections, the legitimacy he needs. After all, he drew the nationalist card too. He also supported the amendment to the constitution, with the intention of cutting out his most significant opponent, Watara, on the grounds that one of his parents is not an Ivoirian national. This law led to the serious disruption of traditional ethnic harmony in Côte d’Ivoire. Since it came into force, people of foreign extraction, and in fact we are talking in terms of a third to half of the population, have been the object of discrimination and even of attacks. Another consequence of the law was that Watara’s supporters, particularly Muslims from the north of the country, managed to successfully boycott the elections, which meant that the turnout was no higher than 40%, i.e. too low to give the new president a credible mandate. When Watara’s supporters took to the streets in order to demand new elections their protest was put down using violent means. Muslim quarters in the city were attacked. At least 170 people died and 350 were wounded. Fearing a civil war, Watara reconciled himself to the result. It would not be illogical for the European Union to immediately demand new presidential elections, in which all candidates would be able to participate this time round. But I recognise that there are a number of reasons for not doing so. Firstly, it would undermine the new president’s attempts to restore national unity and reconciliation. After all, against this background, he offered his opponents various ministerial posts and declared 9 November a national day of mourning. Conversely, all the parties have now declared themselves willing to help to restore the constitutional state and peace. As some delegates have already said, this must inevitably lead to the parliamentary elections on 10 December, which all parties must be able to take part in. I do not believe it is for Europe to add fuel to the fire and stir up tensions even more when those concerned are evidently willing to engage in reconciliation. But the real test for Gbagdo will be on 10 December. All we can do is ensure that these are free and peaceful elections, and hope that the new Ivoirian government has a broad democratic basis. This is what is needed to restore ethnic harmony and help this country out of its economic morass.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am an advocate of an integrated market in the network industries which will serve as the basis for a competitive European economy and for social inclusion, particularly by means of interconnection, but on two essential conditions: that the joint networks are treated as public goods and that we are capable of managing a common energy policy. I endorse and welcome Mrs de Palacio’s work to this end. However, I can see that neither our states nor our institutions are taking on board the concept of public goods as yet, nor are they adopting the idea of a common policy. Moreover, the Treaties do not give them competence to do so and the outcome of the Convention with regard to this matter is extremely uncertain. The sectoral directives are undeniably seeking to move towards public service obligations, focusing on universal service, the environment, interconnection and security of supply, but they are only recommendations to the states. As we are quite aware, we have no legislative authority to enforce a European right. Without a doubt, we are entering the realms of a regulation too, and by a regulation I mean a public measure allowing us not just to introduce genuine competition but also to bring it into line with public service obligations. Basically, competition needs to be developed further. Some Members want to force this. It is easy to criticise dinosaurs, my dear Mr Turmes, and overlook the contribution made by historic operators and what they did for consumers. It is easy to call for ever-increasing ‘deintegration’, but absolutely nobody has any idea as yet how to regulate a ‘deintegrated’, multinational competition system properly. It is ten times more difficult than regulating a national integrated monopoly system. We have not taken into account the Californian experience, price volatility or the inadequacy of long-term contracts. We are not capable of securing development investment. In particular, I noted the obligation, which I believe is premature, of separation in respect of distribution, with regard to which the Members are trying to outdo the Commission, for they want to go as far as separating ownership. We are not the only ones to want to create a retail market for household electricity supply. There is fierce debate in the United States and Canada. Do the gains offset the costs? What are the gains? Maybe the price of a pizza for an average household once a year. And the disadvantages? All the transaction costs and lack of security.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am prepared to withdraw Amendment No 10 if the House accepts the following oral amendment: we would retain the whole of paragraph 5 but the final part of the sentence would be amended as follows: instead of ‘international NGOs that wish to enter Algerian territory freely’, I propose ‘international NGOs that wish to have access to Algerian territory’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it would be much more coherent and in keeping with our Rules of Procedure if we voted, as long as we hold the debate, on Thursday evening or Friday morning.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, violence against women and children, despite having been condemned in successive UN and European Union resolutions for constituting an unacceptable and intolerable breach of their fundamental rights, is still a reality in our society, including in Portugal. Especially domestic violence, one of the most common forms of violence, although one of the least visible, and which involves huge human, social and economic costs for all of society, in addition to being a threat to the safety, the physical integrity, the freedom and the dignity of women. Hence the importance of an integrated approach enhancing the measures, actions and financial means which the Daphne programme provides for, but which are insufficient, as has also already been emphasised. Furthermore, as the report states – and I must congratulate the rapporteur – in the European Union around 500 000 people per year, the majority of whom are women and children, are victims of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation, which also requires more effective measures in the fight against all forms of violence and in supporting victims, including increasing the financial means that are currently earmarked for this purpose. I should also like to draw attention, however, to the field of prevention, by creating more high-quality employment, better social provision and support and by paying greater attention to education against violence, by providing more information and improving promotion of women and children’s rights. I therefore urge the Commission, the Council and the Member States to take account of the proposals put forward by Parliament, capitalising on the experience gained since 1997 and presenting a new action programme with appropriate financial appropriations, and also counting on the full participation of the candidate countries and the creation of a common database to eliminate violence.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking for our ‘shadow’ rapporteur, Mr Vatanen, and I would like to mention that this is now the fifth time since 1993 and the introduction of the common organisation of the market in bananas that the WTO has considered the Community rules to run counter to international trade regulations. The banana controversy is a good example of how hard it is to reconcile the interests of the fifteen Member States, the Union, the ACP banana producing countries, European consumers and our trading partners. I congratulate the Commission for striving to reach a compromise that has regard to the various interest groups. It is right that the European Union should bear responsibility for seeing that European agricultural producers, including banana producers, earn a sufficient income. It is not right, however, that the EU and businesses operating within its territory should suffer annual losses of around EUR 400 million because of trade sanctions by the USA and Ecuador, which are a result of our violating the GATT agreement with regard to banana imports. I would like to express my concern regarding the consequences of Mr Dary’s report for trade policy. To adopt the report as it is could result in a strong reaction from our trading partners, as it does not even include the possibility of talks to ease access to the market. There is strong evidence that some Latin American countries will refuse to accept import quotas – at least not without the prospect of better access to EU markets. For this reason, I would appeal to you to support Mr Chichester’s Amendment No 38, which states that if the EU does not abolish import quotas it will at least indicate its intention to start official WTO talks on the future distribution of import quotas. The Union has lost the banana dispute in the WTO four times already and it cannot afford to lose a fifth time, for three reasons. Firstly, the continuation, despite the bans by the WTO, of the EU’s import quota system, which has been found to be discriminatory will lead to the continuance of trade sanctions costing hundreds of millions of euros. Secondly, if our trading partners receive permission from the WTO to even disregard intellectual property rights, the costs of sanctions will be enormous and could cause long-term damage to EU businesses. Thirdly, continued breaches of the regulations will hurt our image internationally in matters of trade, which might weaken the case for the European agricultural subsidy model. This, meanwhile, would have very serious consequences for the whole of European agriculture. It is high time we showed ourselves to be credible and mature trading partners, as waking up to the realities of the present will accord with our real interests in the long term.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mrs Klass’s report has already been deferred twice. We would, however, like to request that it be deferred for a third time for political reasons. The fact is, this apparently technical report, which does not seem to make any great changes of a political nature, is extremely important insofar as it introduces the possibility of carrying out genetic engineering in viticulture and hence ending up with genetically modified viticulture. We think, given that for the moment we are at the conciliation stage with regard to the framework directive on GMOs, that it would be wiser to await the conclusion of these conciliation proceedings and to deal with this problem once the framework has been clearly defined, which should, in principle, be in the month of January. We therefore propose postponing examination of this report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have voted for this report because I believe that it deals very well with a complex but urgent issue – that of bringing war criminals to justice within the European Union. Mr Kirkhope as a former Home Office Minister in the UK has a good understanding of the complexity of the issue and has shown in his reports the benefits of action at a European level. The Council text has been amended so that some articles which may have breached rules of subsidiarity (those that are concerned with the regulation of investigations and prosecutions rather than with the exchange of information), in fact are now, in my view, in line with this principle.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in actual fact, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy originally considered that, for procedural reasons, this urgency should not be authorised, since this is the third or fourth time that the Council has proposed the urgent procedure in relation to these issues, when really it should present them on time so that Parliament can give its opinion within the usual timescales. However, in the end, considering the situation in Bosnia Herzegovina and in Yugoslavia, bearing in mind that this will be the last time we authorise an urgency – we ask the Commission and the Council in the future to act in full accordance with the norms – we are prepared to accept the urgent procedure. (In successive votes, Parliament agreed to both requests for urgent procedure.) * * *

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I did not intend to interfere with the order of business, but something very serious is happening in Parliament and I feel I must make you aware of what is going on. In the forecourt of the Parliament a shameful demonstration is – probably still – in progress. A large group of young Italians with Lega Nord flags are calling out insults to the effect that the Italian flag should be burnt and shouting “Down with the Italians!”. They are also shouting unrepeatable insults at the President of the European Commission. I am under the impression that the groups of visitors who come here to Parliament and who meet with the Members do so with the intention of familiarising themselves with the European institutions, not to insult them. I imagine that the Member who invited them did so in order to make them aware that we spend money on making the European citizens aware of the process of European integration. I therefore feel that the President of Parliament and yourself should be informed of this matter, so that the Member who is responsible for this group will have to answer for this incident. I do not see any Members who belong to the Forza Italia party in the Chamber. Forza Italia is the largest political force of the Italian Freedom Alliance, which includes this party, the Lega Nord, which is now part of their coalition. This matter must be dealt with, for it is unthinkable that we should have to put up with this type of demonstration taking place inside Parliament in the name of democracy, open doors and freedom. Forgive me Mr President, but I feel that these matters must be dealt with while the time is ripe, for otherwise, if we do not speak out, these demonstrations will end up being perceived as the norm. Apart from anything else, the Italian tricolour is flying up there among the flags which are part of the symbols of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, if I have been informed correctly, the Council has postponed its statement on Iraq and it will not now be made this week. Would it be possible for you to ask the Council to make a statement on Ethiopia in place of the statement on Iraq? This point would then be filled, depending, of course, on whether the Council is able to oblige.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in view of the competences of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, which it is my honour to chair, I would like to stress three or four key aspects of this unprecedented event we are debating today. Firstly, it is important to expand the debate on the European Union’s borders, which has recently been launched. There is absolutely no doubt that successive enlargements lead us to the question: how far? What are the Union’s limits? Knowing where the Union’s borders are is the key if we are to talk about a European identity. Furthermore, it will determine the Union’s future action, in accordance with the possibilities offered by its new shape in terms of expanding the process of integration. My second point is that enlargement is a challenge in terms of the monitoring and control of external borders. In the new area of freedom we are building, it is clear that the decisions of one Member State have repercussions for the others, given the disappearance of internal controls. It is therefore important to help the new Member States to take responsibility for this difficult and costly task, which is a clear example of the organisation of migratory flows. Furthermore, we must reassess the cooperative relations with the new States which will become the Union’s border States. Thirdly, enlargement is a challenge in terms of combating different forms of organised crime, such as terrorism, human trafficking or drug trafficking. It is therefore important to promote intense police and judicial cooperation, the exchange of best practices and the compatibility of legal systems. This will allow the Member States to quickly acquire the levels of guarantee currently enjoyed in all the Member States. Finally, I would like to make a special appeal for the active participation of the ten candidate countries in the work on the Convention on the Future of Europe. It is clear that the Convention is planning the form Europe will take in the twenty-first century and it is therefore essential that not just the current Member States but also the future ones, which will represent almost half of the new Union, feel they are co-authors of that Convention. To sum up, in order to achieve the objective and for enlargement to be successful we must fulfil other objectives which are no less important, such as promoting stability and security, involving all the Member States in its shaping and in the respect for Fundamental Rights laid down in the Charter, and explain European construction to the citizens. In summary, to lay the foundations for a European identity which is constantly evolving, whose lowest common denominator is essential for the consistency and endurance of what we have been advocating for more than fifty years. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first like to thank Mrs Rothe for her careful and sensitive work on this subject. I believe that it takes great courage to keep renewable energy in the spotlight in the way she has managed to do. I have just come from an OPEC meeting, and the price of USD 30 for crude oil provides us with an opportunity to make totally new investments in this sector. Particularly in the field of research and development, it is important that, in future, we should pay more attention to renewable energy, and I especially have in mind gas from landfill sites and sewage treatment plants, for which there is a role in this regard. But I also believe that we should not forget education, because energy efficiency and energy conservation are undeniably important subjects for the future, in just the same way as making use of an efficient infrastructure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I fear that we are in danger of losing the plot or losing sight of what this directive is about. It is part of the financial services action plan; in our Commissioner's own words, 'a key element in the creation of a fully integrated market in financial services, giving investors and consumers more choice'. The proposals introduce three key elements at a time when there is a change in control of a company: protection of minority shareholders, transparency in relation to bid information and regulatory supervision of the process. But what are we in danger of doing as a Parliament, by virtue of the amendments tabled? Firstly, we are being far from transparent. Some of the amendments seem to be a covert attempt to introduce some elements of a company statute through the back door. Secondly, we are adopting rigid structures and procedures when the recommendation of the Commission was actually light-touch, allowing Member States leeway to reflect national practice in corporate culture. Lastly, the issue of clarity: the lack of this is especially evident in the debate about jurisdiction, an issue of which I have a little experience. The common position suggested some form of split arrangement. Now we have a proposition that would lead to muddle, forum shopping, potential litigation at a delicate moment in a corporate deal. This is not helpful. Jurisdiction should be solely in the hands of the Member State where the target company is registered. This is fair for minority shareholders, transparent and, above all, clear. Indeed I would ask the Commissioner to consider whether he can accept my amendment on this crucial point. The Financial Times editorial today talked about bid politics: that it has taken no less than 10 years to get this draft and that we, Parliament, could destroy that in 10 minutes tomorrow by voting through misguided amendments. I hope that will not be the case.

Political group: ELDR