GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as the whole world has affirmed, the assassination of Sheikh Yassin by the Israeli army is a totally irresponsible provocation. Having participated in the establishment and development of Hamas with, at the time, the intention of weakening the PLO, the Israeli powers today seek to torpedo any idea of a peaceful solution. This brute-force approach has but one aim: that of destroying any hope of a negotiated peace with, as a consequence, the construction of the Wall imposed as the only acceptable solution. This shameful wall imprisons an entire nation, goes on annexing its land and resources and is overwhelmingly condemned by world opinion, as witnessed to by the debates of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Faced with this policy that is suicidal for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, the call by sixty key Palestinian figures to refrain from avenging the death of the Hamas leader is extremely dignified and courageous. It is high time the European Union supported them by clearly identifying Sharon as the main obstacle to peace; by specifically entering into official talks with those opposed to this policy of adopting the worst possible line, notably the pioneers of the Geneva Accord; by officially requesting the immediate deployment of an international force to protect the population of the Palestinian territories; and by suspending the agreement with Israel, as demanded by our Parliament two years ago. In short, by matching words with action in the interests of respect for international law. Any other approach is bound to fail and cannot be taken seriously under any circumstances, especially by Arab countries. While the American president continues to encourage Sharon, welcoming him in a few days’ time, the Union can no longer hide behind words. In a totally different spirit to the American plans for a Greater Middle East serving only their economic and strategic interests, Europe must finally take action if it wants to realise the ambition declared in Barcelona of bringing about a region of peace and prosperity. The proven lies concerning the reasons for armed intervention in Iraq and the new boost given to terrorism extending also into Europe drive us to take initiatives much bolder than those implied by what the Council and the Commission have told us today. An end to the occupation and the recognition of a sovereign and viable Palestinian State would also deprive the terrorists of a fertile breeding ground. It is peace in the region and throughout the world that is at stake.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would firstly like to say that Catalonia, where I come from, together with Aragon, Roussillon and the neighbouring areas, are still suffering from the lack of will or ill-will demonstrated by the Spanish and French Governments and other authorities responsible for developing infrastructures which would allow the Pyrenean border to be eliminated. It is an example – a further example – of stupidity and short-sightedness, since an even more dynamic and powerful European region in that area would benefit everybody. I hope that President Prodi's announcement of an increase of 30% in the funding of cross-border sections of the European networks will help governments to act in accordance with the conclusions of the Council which they themselves sign. The development of a free Europe without borders is one side of the coin; on the other side are the management of external borders and movement of people. In this regard also there is identical stinginess and lack of ambition. I am pleased that the Council is reiterating the global view of the phenomenon of migration adopted at the Thessaloniki European Council; that is important, but admission, residence, integration, border control and the creation of positive dynamics with regard to immigration for receiving countries and countries of origin were dealt with at the Tampere European Council. A legislative programme and coherent and clear political action which make it more attractive to go to a consulate than to put out to sea have been on the table for years, just as we have a European programme for offering justice and security to European citizens on the basis of cooperation between Member States, the cornerstone of which is the European arrest warrant. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what do you talk about in the Councils? How can you make generalised statements about fighting crime when what we are waiting for is for you to tell us how and when you are going to adopt the proposals we have on the table, and whether they are going to take effect by the expected date in all the Member States?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, as we all know, the terrorist group ETA has decided on a return to criminal activity, the indefinite cessation of which it announced 14 months ago. As a Basque, I want to humbly, simply but firmly express to this House my feelings regarding the shattering of the hope for peace which the Spanish people and the Basques in particular have clung to throughout this period. It is tragic to think that there are still people in the European Union today who are helpless in the face of the sectarian violence of a few others and who are having to pay an extremely high price for remaining true to their beliefs in the face of terrorist blackmail. I therefore ask this House, which represents all the peoples of the European Union, to show its solidarity with the Basque people in defence of the freedom, respect for the law and peaceful coexistence which we have all craved for so long. We have to believe that, through tolerance towards others and a love for life, we will achieve peace. Finally, I ask you to help personally in ensuring the victory of this desire for peace which all the Spanish people share. Together, we can make this road to peace a reality. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the past I have been a long-standing critic of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in terms of its human rights violations, in particular the ongoing persecution of Christian and Ahmadi Muslim minorities; its ambivalent and lukewarm cooperation in the fight against Islamist terrorism, which has led to the destabilisation of Afghanistan by aiding Taliban forces to regroup; ongoing Jihad infiltration across the line of control into Indian Kashmir; and – as Mr Ford said – most importantly of all, the Pakistani export of nuclear technology to rogue states such as North Korea and former terrorist-supporting Iran and Libya, which threaten global security. Nevertheless I support the trade agreement, as I have to recognise that Pakistan has recently made some encouraging moves in human rights, including women's rights, which deserve recognition and reward. Also, as a friend of India, historically Pakistan's giant neighbour and foe, I take great heart at the peaceful rapprochement as evidenced by several confidence-building measures, most visibly and recently the successful cricket tour. Only three years ago the two states teetered on the verge of nuclear war. India is today in the midst of general elections as a beacon for democracy and prosperity. Its growth rate is now higher than China's and it does not want to see Pakistan suffer economically. The recent campaign in Waziristan shows Islamabad's intent to prosecute a war against al-Qa'ida strongholds in tribal areas, historically no-go areas for the government of President Musharraf, who has now pressured tribal leaders to hunt down Islamist militants. Maybe human rights clauses should not be in trade agreements, as this muddies the waters, but should instead be conditional on aid received. Otherwise, does the EU stop trading with Russia, China, Uzbekistan or Iran, to name a few examples of countries with human rights problems? Clearly that is a matter for another debate, but for the meantime we must support this accord.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to present to the House an oral amendment on paragraphs 33 and 34 to reflect the fact that at the beginning of the week Cyprus closed the competition policy chapter. Paragraph 33 therefore needs to be updated to say that 28 negotiating chapters have so far been provisionally closed rather than 27. The start of paragraph 34 also needs to be corrected to read as follows: “Notes that the only remaining chapters are those which will be dealt with on a horizontal basis for all candidate countries, namely agriculture, financial and budgetary provisions.” The remainder of this paragraph would then lapse. (The House gave its assent to the tabling of an oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0178/2002) by Mr Reimer Böge, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the financial impact of the enlargement of the European Union [2001/2045(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0096/2002) by Mrs Renate Sommer, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Communication from the Commission on the impact of enlargement on regions bordering candidate countries – Community action for border regions [COM(2001) 437 – C5-0599/2001 – 2001/2250(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0202/2002) by Mr Maurizio Turco, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, (a) on the twelfth annual report on the Structural Funds (2000); (b) on the annual report of the Cohesion Fund 2000; (c) on the annual report of the Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-Accession (ISPA) 2000 [COM(2001) 539, COM(2001) 602 e COM(2001) 616 – C5-0006/2002 – 2002/2009(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0124/2002) by Mr Willi Görlach, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the Commission's Sapard Annual Report – Year 2000 [COM(2001) 341 – C5-0009/2002 – 2002/2007(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0200/2002) by Mr Karl Erik Olsson, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on enlargement and agriculture: successfully integrating the new Member States into the CAP [2001/2059(INI)] Before the vote:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will begin by endorsing what my colleague Mr Fava has said. Throughout our negotiations on this issue we have had very good cooperation. He has always understood the importance of a strong development perspective since half of all the EU observer missions have been in developing countries. And the European Union, as a multinational organisation of fifteen developed democracies, clearly has a duty as well as a significant role to play in all the global efforts to promote democratisation, sustainable development and peaceful progress. I would like to welcome this communication from the Commission which provides the necessary clarity on these issues and a real focus on how the European Union should proceed and probably do these things better in the future. The main point, as Mr Fava has said, is that simply holding periodic elections is not enough to guarantee democracy in any circumstances. Elections are not just about a snapshot on a day; what is at stake is how we cover the whole electoral process. This is the strong emphasis in the report that we are looking at this evening. It is essential that any verdict given by the European Union does not inadvertently legitimise, endorse or give any kind of support to any kind of dubious electoral process. The phrase 'free and fair' should be avoided: it is loaded vocabulary which is always ruthlessly targeted by the media in any post-election circumstances. As the European Union's representative in Cambodia I was very well aware of how difficult that phraseology was. It is also very important for us to emphasise the need to support domestic observer teams. These are the key people in developing countries who understand social, political and cultural issues which we, when we parachute in to observe elections, might not be aware of. On the Parliament: we recommend that Parliament sets up an election coordinating group able to provide much faster and more efficient responses. I also would like to ask the Commission what resources, particularly staffing, will be dedicated to the important task of delivering the aims of this very important communication. Finally, the European Parliament is a central player in the Union's efforts to cover elections. Our credibility is at stake here and I welcome the opportunity offered to us by the Commission to define a very clear and shared vision of Europe's role in the democratic process in countries all over the world.

Political group: PSE
In other words – no, but it was a very nicely wrapped-up reply. Mr President-in-Office, you and I agree on the goals of trying to inform the European public, not just in Brussels but everywhere, of what we are doing. I suggest that you should try – or get your staff to try – to sell the idea to television companies. Although your Prime Minister will make a wonderful speech here in the plenary in July, reporting on the presidency, a speech in this chamber is not the same as a comfortable talk to the peoples of Europe. If you think of the way that President Clinton did it, it is not the same thing. I really do urge you – the publications, the seminars, the debates that you organise in Brussels are not the way to reach 300 million people the length and breadth of Europe. A nice TV chat by the Swedish Prime Minister would be a very good beginning and it is not good enough just to do it in this chamber.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order, I should like to raise a matter of vital importance to the European Union, which is also an urgency. As many of you know, I am a member of the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease. This disease wreaked devastation across the whole of the UK and other Member States of the EU and cost European taxpayers billions of euros. You will also be aware of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Korea. The World Cup about to take place in Korea will result in a massive increase in travellers from the EU to that country, and there is a potential risk of a further outbreak of foot-and-mouth from travellers bringing back infected foodstuffs. When it is considered that over ten million animals were slaughtered in my country alone due to foot and mouth, which may have been caused by one single infected sandwich being brought into the UK, I hope you will understand the urgency of the situation. (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PPE-DE
The EPLP abstained on this report because it calls for the appointment of a European Public Prosecutor as advocated by the Corpus Juris expert group. A European Public Prosecutor established according to Corpus Juris would have wide-ranging powers to carry out investigations in Member States. Corpus Juris envisages the eventual creation of an independent European Prosecution Office with jurisdiction for offences against the EU's financial interests carried out both by members and officials of EU institutions and by third parties. It would establish the EU as a single legal area for the purpose of investigation, prosecution, trial and execution of sentences concerning this type of offence. The British Government is opposed to this proposal, which it considers is too broad in scope and presents too many problems in terms of different legal systems and traditions to be practical. The government's preference is to improve existing cooperation between Member States to tackle fraud and other serious crimes with a cross-border element. This would involve the ratification of the 1995 Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests by those Member States which have yet to ratify, and the mutual recognition of legal systems.

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of the creation of a temporary commission, for it is evident that we must maintain absolute vigilance on the subject of safety at sea in Europe, so that the measures we adopt in this House might be fully and effectively applied in the Member States. That must be the purpose of a temporary commission, which will only be of use if it endeavours to improve Community legislation and to check that it is being applied. The Prestige disaster hit our coasts and our populations hard. A temporary commission will certainly have lessons to draw from this tragedy, but certainly not lessons to give to any government. This petty political objective, which has been pursued by a number of left-wing MEPs, has unfortunately sullied the conclusions of Mr Sterckx’s report. I regret this all the more, given that, following the loss of the Erika, our Parliament had marked itself out by its non-partisan work. Out of respect for the victims, in Spain and France, of the oil slick from the Prestige, I hope that we shall fittingly pursue our work in the interests of safety at sea.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Novelli’s original report was rejected because when voting on the amendments we realised that the final text was completely incoherent. On the one hand it had incorporated the positions of those who wished to remove aid to this industry, which is fundamental for energy supply and for social cohesion in our countries, while on the other hand others among us would have liked to go further and have greater certainty about what is going to happen after 2010. For this reason, the report was rejected in committee and as the chair I was given the task of conducting the necessary negotiations to solve the problem, because we would have been unable to deliver an opinion on the Council’s decision. This was why I contacted Mr Novelli, as he had already worked on this report, and also, out of parliamentary courtesy, I thought it was appropriate to consult him as to whether he wanted to put forward the only text that could receive a consensus, which was the Commission’s text, and Mr Novelli agreed, which I thank him for. He thinks it is a step in the right direction, as do I. He thinks that it goes too far and I do not think that it goes far enough but it is, however, the only possible text, and we therefore think that we should give it majority support and comply with the agreement between the different groups, which is not to adopt any amendments modifying the Commission’s text. Now the ball will be in the Council’s court and we hope that it will adopt a solution that is in line with the Commission’s proposal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is now perfectly clear that we must rebuild a European agricultural model. Instead of having a model based exclusively on production, we must instead redefine a multifunctional agricultural policy which provides social balance and job stability, land management and respect for the environment. I believe that this political choice is, without doubt, the right choice. However, it also brings a challenge with it, that is, to reform the European common agricultural policy so as to adapt it to the requirements of the twenty-first century in order to guarantee a future for the European agricultural model in an increasingly globalised economy. This is an ambitious project but one that is crucial. We must allocate the resources to achieve this ambition by gradually re-allocating a significant part of the Community budget of the ‘market’ pillar to the ‘rural development’ pillar, whilst encouraging all types of agricultural businesses, and particularly the most fragile. This is because Europe must not sacrifice the crops that it does not consider sufficiently profitable on the altar of outright profit. Ladies and gentlemen, I am also speaking to you on behalf of the producers of the outermost regions, who sometimes feel abandoned when faced with the breaking up of many COMs imposed by the WTO under pressure from the Americans. The sugar cane/sugar/rum industry provides almost 40 000 jobs in the French overseas departments; the banana industry provides 65 000 jobs in the West Indies and the Canaries. It is important not only for the survival of these regions, but also for the defence of the European agricultural model. If we cease to support these crops, we shall be leaving the way open to Latin American multinationals, which consider the respect of social and environmental standards, or even human dignity itself, to be of secondary importance. And we will be turning our back on the agricultural industry that we wish to build, an industry that is committed to environmental preservation, consumer protection and an industry that is concerned with the economic, social and also territorial cohesion of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the emphasis in this directive on the need to reduce discarded packaging and the increase in the targets for the recycling of packaging waste. Like my colleague Mrs Doyle, I am glad to see the derogations agreed for Ireland and indeed also for Portugal and Greece. I believe it is right and just that the accession countries should have a decisive say in when they feel they can reasonably implement this directive, remembering that they have to face the implementation of so many directives and regulations in the acquis communautaire. In Ireland we have quite recently introduced recycling and there has been a very positive response from the general public. I feel we need a well-established recycling mentality before moving on in any direction. Ireland is a net importer and 75% to 80% of our packaging is imported. We also have a limited capacity to use recycled packaging. We are not able to access the recycling markets easily and the expense involved is considerable for us. We need realistic targets as regards the new directives, but the government feels that it can fully implement this directive by 2011. The European Court of Justice ruling classing incineration as disposal means that we need to find other means of meeting recovery targets, and I would like to say at this point that there is very deep concern generally among Irish citizens regarding the use of incineration. As other countries are moving away from incineration, I believe that we in the European Union need to look very carefully at the way we are moving in this particular area.

Political group: PPE-DE