GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Thank you very much for your reply. I would like to know whether, from your experience in the Presidency of the Council, you think there may be any possibility of creating an international peace committee made up of the parties currently involved in the conflict in Afghanistan. You have replied by giving the facts, by quoting policies on cooperation and the monitoring of human rights. I would like you to tell Parliament about the political measures, not so much of the United Nations, but of the European Union. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what could be done? What realistic political measure could the European Union take in order to make the tiniest contribution to improving the current conflict in Afghanistan? Do you think the Council may be in favour of at least promoting an international peace committee made up of the parties involved?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur for an excellent report that provides a framework for the framework. I would like to fill in an important piece of detail within the framework. The oft-recited Lisbon Summit sets the overall objective of 'making the European Union the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world'. The biotechnology industry can make a major contribution to achieving this ambition. It is therefore vital that research in the life sciences is given the highest priority in the European Research Area. At present there is much despondency, even despair in certain areas of research. We are seeing moratoria on crop trials and new product approvals; deliberate damage to trial crops; delays in transposing essential legislation; verbal and even physical attacks on healthcare researchers; environmental scare-stories that are unfounded and unsubstantiated; harassment of researchers – even threats to life by animal liberation extremists; and the use of emotive and inaccurate terms such as 'Frankenstein foods' by antagonistic spokesmen and in the media. All these pressures, often exacerbated by weak responses by governments and public bodies, are threatening our ability in Europe to realise the great potential which biotechnology offers us. Certainly, a reasonable level of regulation is necessary but this must be directed towards encouraging rather than discouraging advances. Only within such a positive environment will it be possible to realise this potential and be competitive in the industries of the future, in the agriculture of the future, in the highest standards of healthcare, in our contribution to third world development and the elimination of starvation and disease.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a Charter for Europe and for the citizens of the European Union is a fine thing. I say this as a federalist, well aware that that the principle we shall have to refer to one day will be the principle of subsidiarity in order to attain greater freedom for the peoples of Europe, including my own people, the people of the Val d'Aosta, which has always encouraged federalism in Italy and in Europe. It must of course be pointed out, however, that the Charter is only the starting point and not the finishing line. I would like to stress how important it is to refer to the national minorities and cultural and linguistic differences in the chapter on equality. In order to provide an international guarantee for the linguistic minorities, we have to make progress in terms of a genuine European constitution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is important that today in the European Parliament we have been able to adopt at first reading the so-called Erika II package, the name of which reminds us of the sad case of a vessel that sank at the end of 1999, a year and a half ago, causing a great tidal wave and considerable consequences on the coast of north east France and its marine environment. With this second package, the European Commission has put forward regulations to establish a European Maritime Agency and a compensation fund for damage caused in European waters by oil pollution, and to establish a Community monitoring and information system on maritime traffic. In order to do the latter, vessels under Community flags and others that stop over in ports in the Union will be obliged to be equipped both with automatic identification systems (transponders), so that the coastal monitoring stations can automatically identify them, and with voyage data recorders (black boxes) to securely store information on position, movement, physical condition, control and checking. All this is essential in order to solve accidents and, above all, to prevent them, if it is used with appropriate monitoring. The Member States, for their part, will be obliged to develop ports of refuge and safe anchoring areas, for vessels that are in distress, and also coastal monitoring stations, which the vessels would also be obliged to provide with the updated report on their safety condition, drawn up by the classification society responsible for inspecting it, all of which is following the adoption of the amendment tabled by me, on behalf of the Group of the . I hope, Mr President, that this second package of maritime safety measures will be more successful than the first and will be accepted by the Council of Transport Ministers, so that it can quickly enter into force and so that through it, human life and the environment are better protected.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, is our Parliament really aware of what is at stake in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference? Sometimes I doubt it. When I see, in the text of the report, that we are capable of pushing absurdity to the point of deliberately limiting the number of our own representatives at the debating table to two, I say to myself, there are definitely some people in this Chamber who are scared of their own shadow. This IGC, however, opens up a narrow historical window enabling what is essential to meet up with what is possible. Because, in the face of the challenges that the new century will present, morally we do not have the right to be satisfied with the off-cuts of institutional reform that are the left-overs from Amsterdam. Codecision must become the general rule. Our Parliament must obtain, as in any democracy worthy of the name, full budgetary authority over expenditure as well as over revenue. We must equip Europe with the tools of equity, security and solidarity. Let us say it: it is high time that we committed our continent to a constituent process. The only real limiting factor is not our democratic imagination, it is our House’s political will. And if we were not really capable of freeing ourselves from the yoke of the current regulations, then any further reform would become impossible. Without real reforms, Europe, which is often helpless with fifteen Members, will be sterile when it has thirty. As Commissioner Barnier understands perfectly well, today’s developments must facilitate tomorrow’s developments. And who else but us, MEPs elected by direct universal suffrage by the European people, could have greater legitimacy for conducting and concluding this tremendous process. Parliaments often vote on laws, but more rarely do they write history. Because this honour has been granted to us today, I ask that we prove worthy of it. I ask that we show political courage.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The resolution passed today supports a European Commission programme for 2003 that restates the basic lines of the current policies carried out at European Union level, which are essentially characterised as neoliberal, federalist and militarist. Among other aspects: - it does not prioritise the measures needed to ensure economic and social cohesion within the enlarged European Union, through an increase in the financial appropriations aimed at the countries, regions and sectors that are most affected; - it does not, even to the slightest extent, initiate a review of the Stability Pact and the political-economic and political objectives that lie behind it; - it certainly does not question the liberalisation processes agreed upon by the Lisbon and Barcelona European Councils; - it does not criticise the ‘employment’ policy based on flexibility and the increasing insecurity of work; - it does not criticise the application of the ‘open coordination method’ to the pensions sector, the objective of which is an attack on the public social protection system and its domination by private capital; - it does not question the liberalisation process agreed upon by the WTO in Doha, which contributes to the worsening of inequalities on a world scale and the liberalisation of public services; Finally, I cannot fail to criticise the intent of these four groups in the European Parliament to relaunch the creation of ‘European political parties’ once the Treaty of Nice has entered into force.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I do not need to repeat what the Commission and the Council have said on the situation in Chechnya. I would just like to emphasise one area which can serve as a justification for our joint resolution on Chechnya: the suffering of the civilian population; the hundreds of fatalities; the 200,000 refugees and their plight given the onset of winter; the overreaction of the Russian government and the indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population. I have the impression that this is not a legitimate war against terrorist activity, but a political power struggle at the cost of the population. (Applause) For this reason our Parliament must clearly say what it wants and what it doesn’t want. I shall summarise: firstly, we are not disputing the right of the Russian government to fight the brutal terrorism in Dagestan. Secondly, we in no way wish to jeopardise the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. Thirdly, however, we cannot condone aeroplanes bombing the civilian population! I condemn these bombings, just as months ago I condemned the bombings of Novi Sad, Belgrade and Nis, which were described as “collateral damage”.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Iraq was at war with Iran from 1980 to 1989. During this time the USA and EU supported Iraq since we perceived Iran as the real threat to the Middle East. Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990. This was wrong and unacceptable. The UN responded by passing Resolution 661 to impose sanctions on Iraq. The UN action was justified. The USA and Britain imposed a no-fly zone in April 1991. In 1994, Iraq recognised the territorial integrity of Kuwait. From 1991 to 1997, UN inspectors – UNSCOM – systematically and comprehensively inspected, destroyed and verified Iraq's capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. The UN representative reported to the UN in 1997 that UNSCOM's work had covered virtually everything about Iraq. In 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency declared that Iraq no longer had a nuclear capacity. The oil for food programme started in 1996 has been excessively bureaucratic and incompetent, resulting in long delays in procuring essential medicines and food supplies. Of the USD 28 billion worth of oil revenue over three years, only USD 7 billion has been utilised for imports and USD 12 billion remains frozen in a bank in New York. If the sanctions were intended to destroy Iraq's military capacity, then they have done the job. If the sanctions were intended to dislodge Saddam Hussein, this has not still been achieved after ten years. However, ten years of sanctions have caused enormous suffering and hardship for the 22 million people of Iraq. High infant mortality, decreasing life expectancy, increased incidence of cancer and treatable diseases, continue to devastate the social fabric of a country that once enjoyed a high standard of living. The intellectual embargo has deprived doctors, teachers and other professionals of the advances in science and technology. I believe the European Union must reassess its position in helping those suffering acute hardship. There are six EU States – Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece – represented diplomatically in Iraq today. These diplomats share the view of the UN Office in Iraq, WHO, Red Cross, and other NGOs that the EU can, through its diplomacy, achieve a breakthrough. Our parliamentarians and Commission officials should go on fact-finding missions to Iraq to meet members of the Iraqi Parliament, EU diplomats, international agencies and NGOs. Such dialogue will help to establish the facts as they are today and help identify how this deadlock can be broken so that sanctions can be lifted for non-military suppliers. I hope that this House will vote in favour of this resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted for the amendment to paragraph 2 in the vote. In approving this amendment we are opening the door to resuming discussions with the Council on the future statute for the Members of the European Parliament, in the hope that this statute will at last be brought in with all possible speed. As far as I am concerned, this vote in no way signifies approbation of the resolution of 5 May 1999 on the Statute for Members. I still believe that with this draft statute the majority of the Members of Parliament failed to give the voters a clear signal that they want to renounce the excessive privileges and remuneration entitlements. That is why, on 5 May last, I voted against the aforementioned resolution together with my party colleagues in the group of this Parliament. The SP will also continue to be a zealous advocate in the new European Parliament of a fair and just statute with a transparent remuneration system on the basis of costs incurred, and is therefore also able to identify with the proposals that the Council has drawn up on this matter. The party believes that this statute should be approved as quickly as possible. It must form the basis for far-reaching reforms within the European Parliament so that our institution too is in a position to win back the trust of the citizens of the European Union. The demands we make of the Council and the Commission we must also be prepared to ask of ourselves. - Recommendation for second reading of the Lechner report (A5-0034/1999)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I welcome Mr Gil-Robles’ report on reinforced cooperation. While reluctantly accepting that in an enlarged European Union there will be a need for an ‘avant-garde’ I agree with Mr Gil-Robles that there are some essential conditions that must be fulfilled: Reinforced cooperation must be developed within the institutional framework of the Union. It must preserve the single institutional framework within which all MEPs and all Commissioners participate fully in the exercise of the functions of each institution. The procedure for activating reinforced cooperation should be the same for all pillars and should be based on the existing procedure for the first pillar, with the few modifications set out in Mr Gil-Robles’ report. If reinforced cooperation proves necessary I am convinced that only the Community system offers the necessary guarantees in terms of democratic control, legal controls and solidarity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Myller who, for a long time now, has had the task of working on this action programme and has fought resolutely to enable us to get it into order. It is splendid to know that we are at last at the stage at which we are to adopt a position on the Sixth Environment Action Programme. In view of this, it is not perhaps so surprising that many of us wish, and had wished, that the programme might have been better and feel disappointed that it is not as good as we would have liked. At the same time, we perhaps also feel some kind of frustration concerning the unfair distribution of power we sometimes seem to perceive between the institutions, and wish in some way to express this specifically in the case of the Sixth Environment Action Programme. I should therefore like to see liberals and others who are reflecting along these lines pull themselves together and rise above their own frustrations. Let us differentiate between policy and processes and do what we have a mandate for. Let us do it well and take the institutional and constitutional battle elsewhere and not where the Sixth Environment Action Programme is at issue. Let us see what kind of thing the Sixth Environment Action Programme is and see what we are to use it for, namely as a guiding star in all EU policy –environmental and otherwise– and as a lynchpin of the entire sustainable development strategy with which we shall travel together to Johannesburg in September of this year. There is no reason for rejecting this document. We must adopt it today. Regarding Mrs Myller’s reference to the common environment tax, I would make a point of mentioning recent reports in Sweden to the effect that the dramatic fall in the quantities of climate-changing gases is due precisely to the carbon dioxide tax. This further supports the case for our having to continue the fight, together with the Commission, to ensure that the Council is convinced that now is the time for us to introduce a common environment tax, especially where carbon dioxide is concerned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too have a complaint about police repression outside the building, but it relates to Members of this House and not to dock workers. I arrived from Basle in the bus, with a number of colleagues from various countries, to find the gates barred. There was no immediate security problem, there were no demonstrators in sight, but the French police refused us admittance to the building. When I sought to exert my right as a parliamentarian to enter the building, I was physically prevented from doing so and a rather unedifying shoving and shouting match took place. It is my understanding that for police from a Member State to obstruct parliamentarians in the course of carrying out their duties is contrary to the Treaties. It is certainly an affront to the dignity of this House. I should be grateful, therefore, if you would contact the appropriate authorities and make sure, firstly, that nothing like this ever happens again and, secondly, that the French police concerned are given appropriate retraining in the rights and responsibilities of parliamentarians. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is an important step towards defining the general, common values of the European Union. Nonetheless, I decided to abstain for the following reasons: 1. The Charter sets out important fundamental rights. However, in its present form, it fails to do justice to the demand for social justice, as I understand it, in several important areas. It does not include the right to work or the right to housing. Similarly, the social responsibility of ownership has been left out. It has already been assumed that the Charter might form the basis for a European constitution. That makes including fundamental social rights even more important. 2. The Charter is the outcome of the work of a broad-based convention which sat in public. That is, without doubt, an improvement on how documents of such fundamental importance are usually drafted. Nonetheless, it does not substantiate the EU's claim to be a union of peoples and their citizens. If the Charter is to be an expression of the common values of the people of the European Union, those people must be given an opportunity to debate it. It should not therefore be decided and proclaimed at the Council summit in Nice; on the contrary, the summit should prompt a European debate on the Charter. That would give us a chance to restore a Europe of the people and of broad civil involvement. 3. The Charter contains some lofty claims but imposes no concomitant obligation and cannot therefore be enforced by the citizens of Europe. The citizens' Europe we are striving for must establish such recourse. For these reasons I abstained from voting during the plenary session of the European Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in one year, the European Union of the 25, and later of the 27, will have new neighbours, but it will also keep old neighbours. A debate on the new environment is both useful and necessary. From this point of view, the position of Commission President Prodi, that the European Union must look on all new neighbours as friends and associates is absolutely correct. This position must become the position of all of us, peoples and governments alike of both the 25 and the 27, and that is because, in certain cases, sometimes overt and sometimes concealed, opposition is being expressed on the basis of historical atavism or by reviving past antagonisms and/or enmities. In all events, we do not need divisions, we do not need new iron curtains, we do not need new cold war fronts. We must look on many of our new neighbours as potential candidates for integration into the European Union or, in any event, as associates and friends. Any perspective must, however, express the free democratic will of each nation. On the borders of Europe, following enlargement, interesting tasks are under way, tasks that are often of wider geopolitical and strategic interest, including for countries which are not located in this area, which means that they intervene in developments. From the Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Russia, the western Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, the other side of the Mediterranean, peoples expect a great deal of the European Union, of us. We must respond positively to these expectations. Now as regards the boundaries of Europe, I should like to add to what Mr Volcic said about the Caucasus, that right back in antiquity, in the ancient Greek tragedy of Prometheus Bound, it says that this is where the gods tied up Prometheus in order to punish him for giving man fire, that is to say the first elements of modern civilisation.

Political group: PSE