GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the bilateral agreements between the European Union and Switzerland are analogous to the multilateral agreement arrangements that have come into effect within the framework of the European Economic Area. It is the opinion of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party that the European Parliament for its own part should support their adoption. Switzerland’s position illustrates the curious nature of Europe’s present arrangements for integration, and the need to aim to change them, especially now that the EU is expanding throughout the whole of Europe. The merging Europe has organised itself into a series of concentric rings, at the core of which has been the founder members of the European Union. First there was the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, which divided in two when France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux Countries formed the European Coal and Steel Community. The attempt to form a political and defence community came to nothing, but the European Community was created. The Outer Seven, as opposed to the Six, formed the European Free Trade Association, EFTA. The expansion of the Six into a Community of, in the first instance, eight, and then twelve, went relatively smoothly. Since these instances of enlargement, a debate has begun on differentiated integration. At the end of the 1980s, a plan was drafted in the European Commission whereby the then European Community would consolidate as a federation and the other countries of Europe would join the Single Market via the European Economic Area arrangements. The first Agreement on the European Economic Area was offered to the EFTA countries. It was then that concentric circles were being spoken of for the first time. The EEA Agreement was established, although for Austria, Sweden and Finland it turned out to be a short-lived arrangement. EEA membership was rejected in a Swiss referendum. So the only countries remaining in the EEA were Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. Bilateral agreements began to be drawn up for Switzerland. Negotiations are now under way regarding the future accession of twelve countries to the European Union. It is strange that neither Switzerland nor any of the EEA countries are among them, although they would be the best suited of all to join. There is a simple reason for this, however. They do not want to join the present Union, nor that of the foreseeable future. Now that the Union is growing fast, it is reasonable that it should be subject to internal differentiation. Just as Jacques Delors, Valery Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt, among others, recently proposed, the core countries of Europe should go further along the road towards integration than the others, while the rest of the Union could develop as a confederation of independent states and differentiate. In this way, we could ease and speed up accession for the countries of Eastern Europe and this would also make membership possible for Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and even Switzerland.

Political group: ELDR
British Labour members of the PES have voted in support of the Lambert report. We are convinced that the way forward for the European Union is to move towards a common EU policy on asylum. This report on minimum standards is one important part of the evolution of this common policy. We reject the hard right-wing view of those conservatives in the EPP who seek to restrict the right to asylum and protection. As s, we believe that it is essential to be compassionate and sympathetic in our approach. In working towards a common policy for fifteen countries and ultimately twenty-five, there will always be some variations in detail. We believe these differences should not be used to divide us in our efforts to find compromises, instead we should be proud enough to build on the common ground that unites us. Therefore, whilst there are some aspects of the Lambert report which we as Labour MEPs might question, the overall direction of the report is undoubtedly sound, hence our vote in favour.

Political group: PSE
DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, female genital mutilation is a terrible act of extreme violation which causes serious physical and mental damage and a lifetime of suffering. The mortality rate among those who are subjected to this practice is high. There is a need for really vigorous efforts to combat this abomination, this terrible act, wherever it occurs. This is also a European problem, and it is important to ensure that knowledge, research and documentation on female genital mutilation is improved in Europe. We need cooperation in order to find common strategies to ensure that this operation, which is not prescribed by any religion, can be abolished. Several Members have highlighted the need to cooperate with religious leaders. Those women already circumcised need care and rehabilitation, and we must therefore put our faith in more knowledgeable midwives, social workers and teachers. Mrs Theorin referred to what we in Sweden call summer holiday circumcision, which is when girls are taken abroad to be circumcised. In my country this is forbidden, and so it is only natural for the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party to support the proposals to introduce this ban everywhere. This would provide a clear signal that female genital mutilation is illegal at home and illegal abroad and that such mutilation constitutes a violation of human rights.

Political group: ELDR
Dear Luckas, we shall miss you and we shall miss your work to promote the circulation of films in Europe. I would like to thank you for everything that you have done over the last three years and to echo the comments made by the previous speakers. I shall just make a few comments on the circulation of films. Not only will the review of the Television without Frontiers Directive not take place, but what is more, at the same time, other parties are proposing to set up a television channel in Europe for broadcasting films. I would like to know the Commission’s thoughts on the initiative taken – amongst others – by Belgium in setting up this channel. Once again, I am wondering how to define concepts such as the ‘European work’. We were promised that this would be discussed together with the review of the Television without Frontiers Directive. The debate will not take place since the directive is not being reviewed. The question remains, however. Given that there are so many audiovisual broadcasting channels, there is also the problem of frontiers for audiovisual works. Is a television show a piece of audiovisual work and how is it circulated? Is it broadcast on a European cinema television channel? I feel that all these questions are sufficiently important to merit an answer from us. Basically, the question I ask time and time again is that regarding the cultural content of audiovisual and cinematographic industrial production. How will we protect the cultural content? I have a second question to put to the Commission. I believe that the Commission is open to the idea of creating an international instrument that works in parallel with the WTO and is dedicated to cultural issues. We know that a group of experts from France and Quebec carried out a feasibility study on this instrument. Things are therefore taking on a slightly more concrete form. This is a subject that closely concerns us, as Members of the European Parliament, and I would like to open up the debate on this. I think that Mrs Reding and Mr Lamy have, on several occasions, boldly echoed this proposal. I would therefore like, in the interests of cultural heritage, some clarification on this point.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the FIPOL Protocol that we are debating today, to increase the financial resources available to compensate victims of spillages, is another matter which I would like to say to Commissioner de Palacio has nothing to do with the Prestige. In fact, it would be ludicrous to tell the victims of this disaster that, because of the fact that we, Europe as a whole, did not do our duty, they are only going to be compensated for 15% of the damage suffered, because the fund for that purpose only has EUR 170 million available and because unfortunately this increase that we are debating today is not retroactive. Following the Erika accident (we are talking about November 1999) it became clear that the compensation system was inadequate for dealing with this type of disaster, both at international and European level, where such mechanisms were not provided for. The IMO decided, a long time before the Prestige sank, to increase the amount allocated to the FIPOL to compensate victims to EUR 600 million, and in 2000, the Commissioner proposed creating an additional European fund, Compensation for Oil Pollution in European waters (COPE), with a limit of one billion euros. The proposal received the support of the European Parliament, but was rejected by the Council, which opted to negotiate in the IMO. Although the IMO finally established a new fund, and even set it close to the magic and famous billion figure, that amount will never be able to ensure full and swift compensation for victims of future oil spills, for two reasons. The first was mentioned by Mr Ortuondo Larrea: more than a year after the disaster we are far from succeeding in assessing the full extent of the consequences, not only because the vessel, carrying at least 15 000 tonnes, is still 3 000 metres deep in the Atlantic, but also because the oil is still reaching our coastlines. The second reason is that the rising number of increasingly independent reports calculate the damage caused at a figure that is never less than five billion euros. The maximum compensation limits cannot guarantee sufficient protection for potential victims of a large oil slick; this can only be achieved through unlimited liability, including collective damage. Setting a limit on damage is not rational and, above all, it sends a perverse signal to potential polluters. Given that only sovereign States can be parties to the Protocol, as has been mentioned here, the Commission proposes that we call upon the Member States to sign or ratify it – sign or ratify the protocol as soon as possible and by July 2004 if possible – in the words of Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, whom I congratulate on his work as rapporteur. Perhaps, Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, we will have to get down on our knees, because, from May until now, only two Member States have ratified it and a minimum of eight ratifications are needed in order for it to enter into force. I also think it will be necessary to develop the agreements to extend the circle of liability, which, as we have said many times, should cover all those involved in the transport chain.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it would appear that, considering that there are very few subjects on which the entire European Union is united and the abolition of the death penalty is one of them, we must, first and foremost, welcome and take pride in the initiative taken by Parliament and the Council of Europe together to hold the Congress on the death penalty, which took place on 22 June. Secondly, we must make it clear that it is time to move on to the next stage, which is to prepare for the General Assembly of the United Nations and the possibility of adopting a resolution on a moratorium on executions. I feel that this must be our task in the coming months and I hope that the Belgian Presidency will live up to the commitment it made yesterday before this House and support us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have chosen to vote against Amendment No 21 by the committee, which aims to abolish the Swedish system of different voting weights for A and B shares. Some harmonisation of the rules of EU countries on financial markets may be needed for the benefit of the internal market, and thus of growth, but this amendment is along the wrong lines. The system of A and B shares is open, non-discriminatory and based on purchasing contracts that have been entered into freely. It offers opportunities for individuals and institutions to invest risk capital in an enterprise without the liability associated with ownership. There is no proof that the system of differentiated voting power obstructs takeovers. A more fundamental objection is that deciding on forms of ownership, questioning ownership and preventing long-term owner liability for an enterprise are not matters for the EU. - Report: Sturdy (A5-0260/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the explanatory statement to his report, Mr Menéndez del Valle says that in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict too many debates have been held in this Parliament and too many reports adopted. I wonder, therefore, what the point of the report is and whether it is really helpful, particularly as it does not take a truly detached position, as we have heard from the rapporteur already this evening. In fairness, though, through amendment in committee it is now more balanced than it was. Its theme is the call for urgent implementation of the Road Map, a point on which we can all agree. But I have difficulty with the rapporteur's frequent insistence on a greater role for the European Union. He proposes introduction of the euro, an international mandate in Palestine and deployment of an international force on the ground. There seems to be some indecent haste in trying to invent roles for putative EU-badged military forces, which is all part of some other agenda and little to do with the Middle East peace process. We should recall that United Nations monitoring and observer forces have been in the Middle East for 50 years and they have singularly failed to prevent either conflict or terrorism. The experience is that an international force does not secure peace but provides cover for its violation. Let us not forget that this area of the Middle East was under a mandate, a League of Nations mandate, for some 26 years, from 1922. It was then the United Nations which divided the area into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The fundamental problem is that, with the honourable exception of Egypt and Jordan, the Arab and other states of the greater Middle East have refused to recognise the existence of the state of Israel. A key element of phase III of the Road Map is Arab state acceptance of full normal relations with Israel. This is long overdue, and Iran needs to be there as well. Arab states have also, along with the United Nations, helped institutionalise the Palestine refugee question, so that it has provided fuel for hatred, instability and terrorism for over 50 years. Unrealistic expectations are still being kept alive. The UN Relief and Works Agency began providing the basics of life for Palestinian refugees in 1950 and now has over 4 million on its books. Why in the name of humanity have the Arab states allowed this situation to persist?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our committee welcomed the priorities proposed by the Commission for the URBAN programme of better integration of local communities and ethnic minorities and improved security and crime prevention. In committee we thought that it was necessary for the economic and social regeneration of urban areas to go hand-in-hand with the creation of an atmosphere of tolerance towards minorities and therefore for measures designed to reduce racism and xenophobia to be an integral part of programmes to be funded by URBAN. We considered that increasing public confidence by combating everyday urban crime was one of the central tasks of urban regeneration. Our committee noted that innovative and effective action to combat and prevent crime at local level would require a whole array of measures including the incorporation of crime prevention in town planning, action to prevent juvenile delinquency, the reintegration of offenders, and models for effective local cooperation between the various parties involved, for example the police, the courts and social services. We adopted our recommendation unanimously in the committee because we felt that it was particularly important to continue URBAN – which in the past has been implemented successfully – because, as we see it, programmes of this kind are the only way in which we in the European Union will succeed in ensuring that in the long term all those who live in the European Union enjoy peaceful coexistence. For this reason we very much welcome programmes of this kind.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have to say that I am satisfied with Commissioner Vitorino’s response: I feel that, on the whole, his speech did respond to the points raised in the question. I agree that we must emphasise the importance, for the European Union and therefore, from an executive point of view, for the Commission, of encouraging tripartite activities, particularly as regards levels of economic/financial and scientific cooperation. In this way, our financial involvement could be converted rather more often into a more significant political presence in the Middle East. This, in my opinion, is the lesson to be learned from such a long-drawn-out affair. With regard to the subject under discussion, I have just heard Mr Galeote and Mr Menéndez del Valle refer, respectively, to the visit of our President and that of President Prodi to Israel and other countries in the Middle East. I feel that the two Presidents were right not to include this point in their agendas: there is a time and place for everything and, of course, the priorities are different at different levels. I feel that it was right for the two highest representatives of Parliament and the Commission to tackle the most sensitive issues of the peace process which, as we are aware, is still running into difficulties. We need to lend this peace process our full support, and our concern over the issues described in the question put by Mrs Morgantini is not preconceived, nor is it indicative of a negative attitude towards any of the parties concerned. We are being cruel to be kind. We are being strict with our friend, the Israeli Government, to prevent repetition of these illegal occurrences and irregularities, as they are damaging to everyone involved. Seen in this perspective, this initiative should also be viewed as positive, and as an initiative intended to further the Middle East peace process.

Political group: PSE
Firstly, I would like to remind you that the main objective of Directive 94/45/EC is to eliminate any obstacles to informing, consulting and communicating with employees in Community-scale companies. It is true that this directive has been transposed within the allotted time frame. It is also true that its application has led to the creation of numerous European works councils. Approximately 650 works councils have thus been set up in companies that employ at least 1000 people, with at least 150 of these in two Member States. However, there are still 1 800 companies in the EU that meet the conditions, especially in relation to thresholds over which, according to the Directive’s provisions, a European Works Council should be set up. Furthermore, the recent large-scale restructuring operations and redundancies that have highlighted the gaps in European legislation are still fresh in everyone’s minds. It is unacceptable for employees to find out about decisions affecting their company through the media. We are accountable to European citizens, who are ever more doubtful of the existence of a European social model. This period of industrial change should prompt us to think carefully about how we can improve existing arrangements. It is exactly this that the report from the Parliamentary Committee on Employment and Social Affairs sets out to do, for, on the occasion of this application report, it outlines the direction to be taken by the European Commission when it drafts a proposal for an amendment to the European Works Council Directive (scheduled for 2002). This will be a matter of implementing the following improvements: precise definition of the concepts of information and consultation of workers; a general obligation to call extraordinary meetings of the European Works Council, as quickly as is possible and at an opportune time; the implementation of a consolidated consultation procedure on particular questions, specifically involving workers; the lowering of the threshold relating to the number of employees in companies affected by the directive from 1000 to 500 employees for a whole company and from 150 to 100 per establishment in at least two Member States; the establishment of penalties, at national and European level, to be applied in cases where the Directive is not respected. I would therefore also ask the European Commission to incorporate these suggestions into its proposal for an amendment to the European Works Council Directive.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, since you have been asked to write to the Irish authorities as a part of the debate on the events in Ireland, I am wondering if we should not also ask you to write to the leader of the British Conservative Party to pass on our condolences at the outcome of the elections, which is mainly due to deep-rooted euroscepticism which is not a good sign. ***

Political group: PPE-DE