GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is one point that I should like to emphasise, a point which is perhaps common to both reports. It revolves around the legitimacy of the specific status of sport, which I should like us to stress today. The specific status of sport derives primarily from the sports system, from the social pyramid which is reflected in the structure of small clubs in our towns and rural areas as well as in major sporting events. This pyramid must be respected in a number of ways. It must be respected by recognising the sole right of federations to govern their respective sports and by promoting the role that the sports federations can and do play in bonding communities and society at large. In so doing, we must, of course, ensure that money is distributed fairly throughout the entire pyramid formed by the clubs and their federations and that what we might call the sporting ethic is applied to all sporting events. Let us not forget that it is possible to confuse those who stage events with those who provide the spectacle. I believe that an effort has to be made there in the way sport is structured, a point that was raised in Mr Mennea's report, so that there can be no possible confusion between those who stage the event and those who provide us with the information, the spectacle, the entertainment, the pleasure and the dreams. There is the system, and then there is the individual too. And, of course, there is the issue of doping – and I thank Mrs Zabell here for her magnificent report; all of these are relevant to the health aspect of sport. There is the training of sportspeople. But what happens to the individual outside the arena? We have been reminded that sportsmen and sportswomen are not commodities, that they are not goods and chattels. They must be able to move freely in Europe, but they are not products. They are individuals. So what happens when the competition is over? As far as the system and its focal point, the sportsperson, are concerned, what the reports are calling for is the rationalisation of the specific nature of sport in our European Union. Considerations of time – the calendar of events and the course of sportspeople's lives – have been highlighted in both reports, and I thank the two rapporteurs for emphasising the need to live before, during and after sport and throughout the whole year. So you will understand why we in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport are asking for sport to be enshrined in Article 151 of the Treaty in such a way that its specific character is legitimised and that we no longer have to dip into the provisions on health, on education and on employment in order to assemble a case for the preservation of this specific character of sporting activity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have personally listened to all the speeches by the President, Romano Prodi, and I have participated in all six hearings of the candidate Commissioners. The first conclusion I draw from this is that we are faced with a reliable team of Commissioners who, by and large, are competent in their own areas. The second conclusion is that the ideology expressed by this team and also many of their proposals are far removed from my own ideas regarding the construction and management of Europe, with an extremely worrying predominance of Liberalism over social aspects and citizen’s rights. This is why, even though I shall be voting at noon, with no qualms, in favour of the appointment of this Commission, wishing it every fortune and good luck, nonetheless in a few weeks I shall be paying particular attention to the programme which will be announced for the year 2000 and the legislature. My vote on this occasion, and any subsequent votes, will depend on the extent to which the proposals made to us reflect the propositions on the basis of which I was elected on June 13. For me, more than ever, the stakes of the next five years come under four items: 1 – a political Europe which is democratic, transparent and efficient; 2 – a social Europe which is solid and fair, and which defends those most at risk; 3 – a citizen’s Europe where every citizen feels completely European in everyday life; 4 – a Europe which is capable of expansion with grit and determination in order to guarantee peace.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I agree with the many speakers before me that what we need more than anything at the moment is a system which enables traceability at all stages of production. Fortunately, integral chain control (ICC) is already well-known in many countries. In my opinion, this is not related to national borders. If certain conditions are met – and I would like to refer to Amendments Nos 60 and 61 concerning the inspection of BSE, as others have done so before me – then the designation “Origin: EU” is sufficient as far as I am concerned. This does not preclude all the other information being added to the label on a voluntary basis. Mentioning the relevant country, region, town, village, and so on and so forth, is fine but let the consumer decide where he wants to buy the product. But it should not be an EU stipulation. If this were to be the case, then this would be a re-nationalisation of Europe’s common market in a sense, and that would be a retrograde step.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, for many people, Vietnam would appear to be a long way away. But here, for example, sits Mr Mayer, who represents Lower Bavaria, one of the most upwardly mobile regions at the heart of Europe. One might even say that Lower Bavaria borders on Vietnam, because if you go from Lower Bavaria across the Czech border to Bohemia, you will see huge Vietnamese markets, with all that this implies in the border area. This shows how many waves of refugees have left Vietnam for central Europe and Europe as a whole over the last thirty years and it shows how small the world has become and how closely everything hangs together. During the last plenary session, Mr Modrow of the Social Democrat Party spoke about the huge crimes committed in Asia in the twentieth century by Germany, the USA and Japan. He apparently completely forgot, however, that the worst crimes in Asia in the twentieth century were committed by Communists, namely the Khmer Rouge, namely Stalin and Lenin in the east of the Soviet Union, in China and, last but not least, in Vietnam, where people were persecuted for decades after the horrific Vietnam War and still are persecuted. Vietnam is a Communist country in which religious freedom continues to be trampled underfoot. We are in favour of contacts with Vietnam and we are in favour of economic contact with south-east Asia. We take the view, however, that the only basis for economic collaboration is the rule of law and democracy. Neither the rule of law nor democracy exist in Vietnam. We must give massive support to the process of reform in Vietnam, which is still in its infancy, by saying quite categorically that freedom of religion and conscience, freedom for the Buddhists, Catholics and Protestants who are brutally persecuted and imprisoned there, is our yardstick for collaboration with this country. Only when religious freedom is granted and only when these standards are applied can Vietnam become a partner for us. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
We Swedish Social Democrats have abstained from voting in the vote on paragraph 2 and recital B. Paragraph 2: It is good that the Eurogroup is developing its cooperation on monetary issues. However, to transfer all cooperation on economic policy to the Eurogroup would be wrong. We do not, therefore, support a possible amendment to the Treaty in order to strengthen the Eurogroup’s powers in the economic area, in any case not until we have more concrete proposals. Against the background of EU enlargement, it is particularly important that Member States outside the Eurogroup have the opportunity to take part in economic cooperation. Recital B: We do not wish to give our support to progressively binding legislation in the economic area, at least not until we know more about the specific implications.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express the satisfaction I have in noting that the most remote regions, including the French overseas departments, have received some attention in connection with the INTERREG III initiative, opening up new perspectives for their cooperation with other countries in their geographical area, even though it is true that more could have been expected, particularly with regard to access to the various strands. For a long time, probably a survival of our colonial heritage, our regions have fixed their attention on the European mainland, ignoring and even scorning their closest neighbours. That time is now past. Our regions have become aware of belonging to an environment that they are connected to, not only in geographical terms but also in terms of their culture and the history of their peoples, hence the intensely expressed aspiration to become more deeply rooted in this environment. This increased awareness does not, however, affect identity alone. It is fostered by a fair appraisal of our assets. So, for example, the island of Réunion is located on a trade axis between the countries of southern Africa and those of south-east Asia. It cannot afford to remain outside the regional alliances being forged in this area, lest it miss out on a historic opportunity, and the same applies to our regions in the Caribbean. At last we are convinced that our young people may start to see an end to the tragic unemployment, the source of so much despair, if we can export to neighbouring countries the know-how which we have gained thanks to the operation of the European structural funds. INTERREG appropriations may be used to make our regions into veritable European Union bridgeheads into these geographical areas, giving it worldwide scope. I am counting on the Commission, and specifically on you, Commissioner, to allocate adequate resources for effective action.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, you know that unfair competition on the part of Korea has been proven. The Commission has been there and has seen it. We are now facing a long process. We will possibly have to wait half a year to know whether or not the World Trade Organisation will condemn the unfair competition of the Koreans. And we must not forget that Mr Valdivielso de Cué asked you if the Commission believed that, without the aid which the shipbuilding industry had received, this industry would have been able to survive in the European Union. This is a dramatic issue. Mr Valdivielso de Cué referred to Spain, to the Basque Country and I must refer to Galicia, which is an Objective 1 region, with a very important shipbuilding tradition and which is asking, because it is an Objective 1 region, for this aid to be maintained in some way until the dispute in the World Trade Organisation is settled. The WTO will condemn – it must condemn – the unfair competition on the part of Korea. That is the question: is the Commission prepared to prolong certain aid, at least in the case of the most needy regions that have a major shipbuilding tradition, so that they can survive in the face of this unfair competition?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there was a time when European businesses ruled the seven seas in terms of transport. To do this, they used their own ships which were registered in the country in which the owner was based, and mainly employed crew from their own countries. The substances they transported were less harmful than now, and they were little affected by extremely cheap competitors, particularly from the Third World. Furthermore, they could not afford any major scandals affecting public opinion in their own countries. It is precisely in those circumstances that working conditions and safety in shipping were far from ideal. But State governments and trade unions were better equipped than they are at present to monitor the course of events. If businesses wish to withdraw from State intervention, this can best be done in shipping activities partly carried out outside of the territorial waters of States. In those areas, attempts are made to use unsound ships and underpaid crew. These ships are registered in a country other than that of the owners, and that is preferably a country were taxes are low and the level of inspection negligible. Crews are recruited where unemployment is high and wages are low. Many ships are obsolete and neglected, and the chances of waste and cargo ending up in the sea are significant. Safety for the crew is generally minimal, and the environmental risks high. I am, in fact, of the opinion that ships should not be inspected by private classification societies, but rather by the government, in sound coordination with trade union and environmental movements. Until that is the case, it remains crucial to ensure that classification societies are not dependent on those they are meant to monitor, for, without such a guarantee, any form of control would be an empty exercise. I am keen to support proposals which rule out classification societies if they have ties with the ship’s owner and which demand better periodical inspection of these societies. That is a step forward, as is banning single-hulled tankers and refusing access to ships from states sailing under a so-called ‘flag of convenience’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I welcome the Martelli report on Slovenia's application for membership of the European Union and endorse the conclusions she draws. I note that Slovenia has made excellent progress towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria and is making good progress towards fulfilling the acquis communautaire. Once the European Union has adjusted its institutional structure and policies in order to cope with enlargement I can see no reason why Slovenia should not be welcomed into the Union. I hope Slovenia will be in the first group of new members. - Poos Report (A5-0249/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are on the verge of a disaster announced and desired by the US Government. It is obvious now that the values upheld by President Bush have nothing to do with democracy, but are values quoted on the stock exchange and values that smell of oil. Iraq has not yet been crushed under a hail of bombs, yet already the Wall Street Journal of 10 March has announced a USD 900 million invitation to tender by the US Government to five US groups, for the reconstruction of the country. What an admission that is! Iraq is only the first country which will be the victim of an offensive to allow US capitalism to globalise its economic, and therefore its military, supremacy, converting people into goods and cannon fodder. Afghanistan, Colombia, the Philippines, Venezuela, Palestine – no one is to be spared. Yet, on 15 February, another upheaval occurred. Thousands of people invaded the streets of our capital cities to say no to war, and they will do so again on 15 March. Democracy means taking up this challenge, and not a single elected representative or government can escape that fact. The veto is now on the streets. Here and in the USA, we all have to decide which side we are on.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is absolutely unacceptable that more than 600 people, including children, have been held for two years in Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial, in circumstances which no democratic state could legitimately stand over. It is a recipe for feeding hatred, not for coming to terms with the awfulness of terrorism. This is a debate about defending democracy and the rule of law, and an appeal to the good sense and the democratic instincts of the American people in circumstances where good sense and democratic instincts are all important. It is right and proper to condemn and continue to condemn the atrocity of 11 September 2001 and all other atrocities engineered by terrorists, whether in the United States or in Europe, in Spain, Ireland or indeed in Israel or the Palestinian territories. Terrorism deliberately sets out to destroy freedom: its purpose is to destroy freedom. If we attempt to undermine the terrorists by using means which themselves destroy freedom, we undermine the very foundations of our own society. If we go down the route of denying basic human rights and basic democratic rights to those we suspect of terror, then we are giving them a victory and we are shaping a society which in the long run will not be in the best interests of the people of this world who want to live in a sustainable peace. I would appeal to the Irish presidency to put this matter on the agenda of the EU-US summit in June this year.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all let me congratulate my good friend Mr Laschet on his brave attempt to reform the structures of the UN, which were shown to be sadly lacking during the recent Gulf War. The report also looks at the role that the EU should play within the UN. Clearly, the UN was designed for the Cold War period in which permanent membership status and veto rights were necessary for the nuclear powers to ensure global security. Not enough has changed yet in the world to justify changing that. The responsibility of security often conflicts with the additional mandate of the UN to protect human rights, as many of the UN Member States are undemocratic dictatorships – resulting in the perverse decision to appoint Libya as Chair of its Human Rights Committee. Furthermore, in the past, the UN was powerless to stop the brutal invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan as a result of the Soviet veto. China is still not a democracy or a respecter of human rights, making security the main responsibility of the UN and it has a vital role to play in the world. I believe there is a case to be made for India and Japan to be given permanent membership status as a result of their size and democratic status. Similarly, Nigeria or Brazil could be candidates. Unfortunately, this report conflicts with a number of stated positions of my party, the British Conservatives, as it attempts to dilute UK veto powers with a double veto and suggests an EU seat on the Security Council, which would undermine British and French membership. We are also opposed to an EU foreign minister and to a legal personality for the EU, and therefore, no matter how well intentioned the report is, I cannot support it as it stands. With my party, however, I will of course be monitoring closely any attempt to reform the UN. We welcome very warmly today the presence in the Chamber of Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you for your comments, Commissioner Lamy. In making them you have already answered part of the first question which I am about to put to you. I should like to come back once more to the system of incentives in the GSP, in the generalised system of preferences, which has of course been extended to social policy and the environment. From what I have heard, this programme – which I consider to be very sensible – has not yet met with the desired response in the countries concerned. At this early stage, and leaving aside the fact that the scheme does not of course impose any negative penalties, do you have any indications why the response has been so poor? The second question is: has an assessment been made of the extent to which the large free trade area from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, which is of course planned by the USA and within which it is intended to reduce tariffs to zero would – if it ever becomes a reality – impair or stimulate trade with us in particular in the generalised system of preferences? Has the Commission already considered this? I have one final question on the WTO: recently it was written that people would actually welcome a decision in Qatar to open a new negotiating round in various sectors. Can you say anything more about this?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am pleased to be able to make my two-minute contribution to this hotch potch of a discussion, which, given the time of day – and I intend to spend one of my allotted minutes on making this criticism – certainly underlines how little regard we have for the importance of the issue. It is simply disgraceful that we are debating the enlargement and expansion of the European Union – which affects 100 million people – at midnight. We ought to stop and think whether it is right for our parliamentary debate on this issue to be treated as if it were a kind of afterthought. It is little wonder that the people beyond these walls do not give us the respect and attention befitting a Parliament, when that is how we behave. I will now use my second minute to talk about Slovenia. I am delighted that the report has turned out to be so positive and that Slovenia – and as leader of the delegation I was able to check this out repeatedly, and in fact the Commissioner was there with me on more than one occasion – has made truly enormous efforts to fulfil the criteria. There are certainly still a few things to be done and there are still a few issues that need to be clarified. After all, the Copenhagen criteria are not just something static that countries have to achieve once and then keep to; they are to be used, or rather, applied on an ongoing basis. We in the European Union also undertake regular checks as to whether human rights are being upheld in the proper manner everywhere. In this sense, it is a process of development, which we follow attentively, but we hope that Slovenia will continue to hold this positive position and that it will be in the first group.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this report was voted under Rule 110a of the Rules of Procedure, which allows for no debate and no amendment to the report. The British delegation of the Group has previously sought to amend reports which it did not support. The new Rule, however, leaves no option but to vote against certain reports. Whilst we support much of what the Hulthén report contains, and of course its objectives, we could not vote in favour of a package that contains references to European eco-taxes. Tax is a matter for Member States. It is not within the competence of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Prodi, we shall judge your good intentions and declarations when they become proposals. Until then, we are asking you to do your job better. First of all, you yourselves must actively seek out any breaches of the law and not wait around for the citizens to come forward with their accusations. In the last scandal, which few speakers mentioned and which concerns the carcinogenic coating on tinned food, we saw no initiative from you nor did we see any ensuing determination. Secondly, we are calling on you to be tougher and to make public any legal proceedings against governments who breach the deficient legislation that we have. Tell us which governments you have referred to the Court and why, and which companies were responsible for those violations. Thirdly, what we are asking for is for you all to be a little more forward-looking. We all know what the next scandal will be over: nitrate contamination of vegetables. Do you intend to do something about that? Do you intend to say something to the citizens? Do you intend to prepare yourselves for action? As regards the body you wish to establish, do not go looking for other models. The best model is probably that of Europol. And as for the international dimension of it all, do not turn to the World Trade Organisation. For goodness sake! What about the World Health Organisation, Mr Prodi!

Political group: GUE-NGL