GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as I see it, the problem is not so much that we provide too little money or that we would have no opportunity to do something from our side, the problem is the absorption capacity of these countries along the southern shore of the Mediterranean and the fact that, so far, we have been unable to make sure the projects are in place and the money is used for the required purpose. Do you not rather think that, if we create some sort of Mediterranean Bank, the money will gather dust in it and as little will find its way to the region as has done in the past? I really cannot see how some sort of Mediterranean Bank will help to get the money there.

Political group: PPE-DE
The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the resolution because it does not include the amendment which we proposed calling for a ban on the collection and transmission of personal data on passengers to third parties, as demanded by the citizens and, in part, by Article 6, paragraph 2 of Council Regulation 2299/98. There are, of course, questions in the resolution as to the advisability of the measure, the introduction of biometric elements in the new passports of EU citizens and the terrorism agreement signed by the Greek Presidency of the ΕU with the USA, but only secondary and insubstantial corrections are proposed as to if records will be kept for three or for six years, if there should be fewer than 39 elements and if passengers will know and agree to have their details on record. It is as if protecting privacy were a personal rather than a social and political matter. This is yet another attempt to give pseudo-democratic coverage and cultivate self-delusion as to the role of the ΕU and the European Parliament in the global imperialist system. What is important to the grass-roots movement is not if the ΕU is playing first or second fiddle, but that, together with the USA, it is carrying out an orchestrated attack on fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Mann observed during the discussions in committee that his report had not enjoyed the support to which he had previously been accustomed. This of course is partly due to a number of demands which have a very specific national character and which do not really belong in the European debate at all. I support the intention expressed in his report, which is that the guidelines should concentrate on what is essential and that annual reports should also continue to be produced in future. Also in terms of the objectives, I believe that we have achieved broad consensus, especially as regards flexibility on the labour markets, without subjecting the workforce – the employees – to any unnecessary dismantling of their social protection. The path towards this goal is undoubtedly a matter of debate. Fresh ideas would be all well and good, Mr Pronk, but in some areas, we can detect very clear retrograde steps, starting with the involvement of the national parliaments. Mr Mann has called for the national parliaments to be allowed to exercise greater control, yet we agreed some time ago that they will not only exercise control but will participate through the framework of legislation – which goes much further. Indeed, Sweden and Denmark have already applied this in principle. Moreover, Mr Mann calls for implementation of the national further training plans to be pushed through. Here too, we agreed that there should be legislation imposing a binding obligation and setting out workers' rights to further training. Furthermore – and this, of course, is where we cannot agree with him – he calls for indiscriminate tax cuts and wage subsidies. These are not fresh ideas. They are completely obsolete. Nor do they promote the entrepreneurial creativity that we urgently need.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with regard to Mr Esclopé’s report, we are not opposed to a European compensation fund, particularly, and I quote, in order ‘to ensure adequate compensation of pollution damage in EU waters resulting from the transport of oil [...] by sea’. We are, however, opposed to the fact that this fund is, ultimately, paid for by taxpayers. It is up to polluters to pay for all the damages that they have caused, either directly or indirectly, not to mention the financial penalties that apply for having failed to avoid causing pollution. That was not the case in the sinking of the Erika, where, moreover, the charterer was Elf; in other words, one of the richest oil companies in the European Union. Furthermore, even with the help of various compensation funds, the victims of the oil slick have still not received adequate compensation and some have not even received any. The individuals responsible for damages are themselves threatened with court action, or even prison in order to force them to face up to their responsibilities. In order to force the guilty oil companies to do this, we must confiscate all their assets within the European Union, to make them pay immediately. Of course, nothing of the kind has been proposed. It is for this reason that, whilst we approve some of the amendments, we shall abstain from voting on this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it has to be said, the European Parliament has been divided over the drugs policy for years. By and large, there are three shades of opinion discernible in this House. Firstly, the followers of the Swedish model which, apart from treating drug addicts, emphasises the control of narcotics. Secondly, there are the followers of the Dutch model, which tends more towards the treatment of drug addicts than control. The Dutch model which allows drug shops, which in the Netherlands are given the unfortunate English term “coffee shops”, presupposes a division between soft drugs, namely marihuana, and hard drugs, such as heroin and ecstasy. These two groups, the followers of the Swedish model and those of the Dutch model, do not want too much European cooperation in this field because they fear that their national policy might be affected. Alongside these two groups, there is a third trend represented in this Parliament, namely those who do advocate more extensive and intensive European cooperation in the drugs policy, so that the various approaches which I have described above can grow towards each other. This means that countries like France and Germany should do more to treat their drug addicts but that a country like the Netherlands, for example, should focus on controlling the drugs nuisance created by the “coffee shops” and on drugs tourism. These three trends are also represented in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. I am therefore pleased to say that most of my group colleagues can vote in favour of Mrs Giannakou’s report. We find it an interesting report which fortunately disregards the issue of legalising narcotics and looks at the measures to be taken by the European Union. On 6 November last, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, advocated stronger European cooperation in the field of drug control. He did this further to reports of Italian youngsters using ecstasy which largely originated from my country, the Netherlands. Mr Prodi’s remarks caused a huge commotion in the Netherlands. I personally agree with Mr Prodi. If the European Union is intent on dealing with transnational crime forcefully, then this should also include the control of drug trafficking. In fact, that is Europol’s first task. Ecstasy is a hard drug which is lethal, as recent events in Italy have shown. Those supporting the legalisation of soft drugs should also be open to European cooperation. Indeed, a Member State could not legalise drugs on its own, this could only be done at European level.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we cannot subscribe to this condemnation of the xenophobic and ethnic racist policy of the Côte d’Ivoire administration without, at the same time, condemning the unspeakable policy of the French government authorities, which not only support the Ivorian president and his policies but which are also making diplomatic overtures to various governments on his behalf. This attitude is descended directly from France’s imperialist policy. Its leaders, whatever their political hue, have supported in turn the dictatorship of Houphouët–Boigny, the authoritarian and corrupt Bédié regime, the leader of the putsch, General Guei, and today Gbagbo, a would-be Socialist but in fact an out-and-out xenophobe. The French state could not care less what Ivorian leaders impose on their own people, provided that they faithfully serve the interests of the major French companies in Côte d’Ivoire which, both during and after colonialism, have always made huge profits by plundering the country and exploiting its working classes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Group of the in support of Mr Pronk's words on behalf of the Committee as a whole. I have to say that I was not totally satisfied by the Commissioners' responses, in that the documents that were referred to, with which we are familiar, as Mr Pronk said, need to contain time frames and rather more practical decision. As we know, we have been discussing the issue for years. Parliament has played a fundamental role in this dialogue, but it is now time to move on from dialogue and declarations to concrete action. The Commission needs to start putting forward practical solutions, for otherwise the issue will never be resolved. I can see a certain contradiction and I am concerned, and I believe I speak for the rest of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs as well, that behaviour within the Commission in relation to the issue appears to be somewhat contradictory. The role of the non-governmental organisations in the democratic construction of the Union and the economic and social role they play in Europe, the entire social economy sector, the third sector, is now acknowledged in practice as well as in documents – if we consider that approximately nine million workers are employed in this sector – as a major sector of fundamental importance. Well, the most recent decisions of the Commission – and I refer to the Directorate-General for Industry – have labelled this a negative priority – they have now invented the concepts of positive and negative priorities – and have abolished the 'social economy' operative unit. In my opinion, this is extremely serious and leaves us extremely sceptical as to whether the declarations made repeatedly in this House, which we have heard on several occasions, will be followed by practical action in the right direction. The NGO platform, with which Parliament and the Commission have maintained dialogue, and all those involved feel as if they have been taken for a ride, and I think that we parliamentarians also feel rather as if we have been deceived, when declarations are made saying one thing and then, in reality, practical decisions lead to another. The absence of an interlocutor on the administrative side apart from anything else will make it all the more difficult to resolve these problems rather than making it easier. So if we genuinely want to make positive progress, speed up the procedures and provide positive responses for the European citizens as well as the Non-Governmental Organisations, in my opinion, we need to rethink a whole series of decisions which have been taken and, most importantly, change them.

Political group: PSE
In its Draft Amending Budget, the Commission proposed additional appropriations for the scrapping of fishing vessels through the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument, to the sum of EUR 32 million. In its version of the Draft, the Council rejected this request since it could not reach internal agreement on the manner of financing this measure. I should like here to state my total support for the rapporteur in urging the Council to submit a sustainable proposal for financing the reform of the common fisheries policy. The present request for additional appropriations simply refers to the use of surplus funds from 2002. There is nothing new here, just a way of giving financial resources to certain measures that have already been adopted, including: – the reconversion programme for the Spanish and Portuguese fleets, which suffered as a consequence of the non-renewal of the Morocco fisheries agreement; and – the emergency measures taken after the Prestige disaster off the Galician coast. It should be remembered that these measures were included in the flexibility instrument for 2003-2006, the share for 2003 being EUR 32 million. The Council seems to have ‘forgotten’ the consequences of the moratoria on cod fishing, the failure to renew the Morocco agreement and its refusal of funds for vessel modernisation. - Report Leinen (A5-0170/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
The EPLP has voted for the motion for resolution on the social consequences of restructuring because we believe in partnership in the workplace. However, we have reservations on the resolution itself. The EPLP recognises that attention needs to be given to the social consequences of restructuring and has voted for this resolution as it is non-legislative. However there are aspects which are not supported. Paragraph 6 is not supported by the EPLP. The EPLP continues to have strong reservations as was expressed at first reading of the framework directive on informing and consulting employees. In January, Stephen Byers, UK Minister for Trade and Industry announced that business and Unions would be brought together in the UK to examine and review current UK legislation for consultation. However, the Minister stated that the UK Government continues to oppose the European legislation on information and consultation. Mr Byers stated that for the UK, 'our whole system of corporate structures is quite different from that on the continent. However, in many respects, the directive reflects the continental system of corporate governance, not that in the United Kingdom. The directive is not appropriate for several reasons, but the issue is important and we should deal with it in our domestic setting.' (Commons Hansard Debates 18th January 2001) The EPLP supports the view of the Minister that it is inappropriate to have European wide legislation in the area of information and consultation. - Lipietz Report (A5-0023/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, however strange it may sound, I do not feel there is any point in taking advantage of and squandering the 3 minutes at my disposal to make you suffer by repeating everything that has been said to saturation point in this Chamber on the tragedy in Iraq over the last few months. That is why I shall also confine myself to one question which, in my opinion, needs to be asked as a matter of priority now by the European Parliament, the elected representative body of the peoples of Europe, to whom we have to answer for our judgments and decisions and who are interested and ultimately entitled to have at least one answer as regards the pretexts which the leadership of the war coalition used primarily in order to justify its actions and persuade or deceive international and, in particular, European public opinion. What, in other words, was the specific outcome of the attack on Iraq and the triumphant military victory over the regime of Saddam Hussein, as regards the location and neutralisation of the banned Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the establishment of a democratic and representative Iraqi government and the elimination of international terrorism and, in particular Al Qaeda?

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner Patten, thank you and congratulations on your speech. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it is only 18 months since the tragic events of 11 September and Mr Bush and his chiefs of staff have managed to achieve what one would have thought impossible, even for the frequently clumsy diplomacy of the Americans: they have alienated almost unanimous and unreserved support for the USA and its efforts to combat terrorism and have replaced it with an equally universal and unanimous coalition against the American Government and its war and strategy plans. This is not due to differences over the depressing, dictatorial regime in Iraq or even the dangers inherent in Saddam Hussein’s possessing weapons of mass destruction, dangers which were confirmed and agreed in Resolution 1441, which must be applied fully, no one doubts that; an overwhelming majority of people and governments throughout the world have realised that this crisis goes far beyond Iraq and its leadership and basically has to do with the future order of the world, a world being called on to choose between high-handed unilateralism on the one hand and legitimate collective management of international problems on the other. In other words, it is being called on to choose between the principles and rules set out in the UN Charter and the material components of Washington’s new strategic dogma, which favours a Weltanschauung of pre-emptive strikes, unilateral violent intervention, undermining of the UN and expedient, supposedly voluntary alliances determined by the military operation of the day, rather than fundamental, procedural privileges in keeping with the international legal order which has applied in the past. It is precisely against these prospects that we need a firm stand by the European Union and the European Parliament, as the elected representative of its people, who have joined with the American people in a common fight to defend the rule of law which the current American administration seems determined to flout.

Political group: PPE-DE
President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, in every country in the European Union, the great majority of public opinion is still opposed to the idea of a war in Iraq. If the objective really being pursued is that of disarming Iraq, we must strengthen the inspection programme. The inspectors are the alternative to war. If, on the other hand, the objective is first and foremost to topple the Iraqi regime by force, then we must conclude, here and now, as the American Government has done, that the inspection programme has now become pointless. We must therefore confirm, at the Security Council on Friday, that the sole objective of Resolution 1441 is to disarm Iraq. I would remind you that the resolution adopted by the plenary session of the European Parliament on 30 January is clearly in line with this reasoning. This attitude in no way signifies that we accept the dictatorial nature of the Iraqi Government. It signifies that we do not want a change of regime to be brought about by war. That, Mr Poettering, is the attitude of the German Government, and it is not an isolated one: it is also the attitude of the French Government and the Belgian Government, and I hope that next Monday, at the European Council meeting, it will be the unified attitude of the fifteen governments of the Union. Whatever happens, I am proud of the position adopted by these various governments. (Applause) I mentioned public opinion in Europe, but I should also like to talk, though not at such length as Mr Wurtz, about the fate of the people of Iraq. I too was a member of that delegation of 31 Members. The contact that we had there, both with the authorities of the UN agency and with the NGO officials, have led us unanimously to conclude that after two wars and the current embargo the Iraqi population is at the end of its tether. A new war in Iraq would obviously have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, and this was confirmed to us by all the UN workers whom we met in Baghdad. Is this really how we imagine we are preparing a future for the people of Iraq? Finally, in order to give some hope back to the people of Iraq, I should like to emphasise, as I already have done and as we already did at the previous plenary session, the need to change the embargo arrangements. Before 11 September 2001, the whole of the international community recognised the negative effects of this embargo, which is helping the dictatorship and keeping the population in a state of dependency while at the same time stifling the Iraqi economy. I propose that, at the same time as we intensify the inspection programme, there should also be a revision of the mandate of the 'oil for food' programme, which would make it possible to buy local products, thereby encouraging the Iraqi economy to make a fresh start, and which would also give responsibility for distributing food rations to the UN World Food Programme. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly I wish to thank Commissioners Schreyer and Kinnock for their successful reform of the Commission and the reshaping of the Financial Regulation connected with it. They create a basis for the clarification of personal accountability, taking responsibility and the creation of activity-based budgeting and management. This budget is in fact the first activity-based budget. How to improve activity-based management is a continual challenge. The objective must be that the different policy areas be given room for manoeuvre in creating the most efficient administrative structure possible. This means that in the future we can very likely abandon the practice where Parliament decides separately on the establishment of a post or changes to it. Parliament will only decide how much money is available in a particular administrative area. This may then itself decide on the creation of the most appropriate administrative structure. In the future, defining and bearing personal responsibility will be of key importance, because activity-based budgeting and management lead to the downward delegation of power of decision. As regards financial management, we have to be able to establish exactly what we require of the careful management of finances. Different organisations and NGOs make up their own areas of specialisation, which the European Parliament has given its support to. These ‘earmarked’ A-30 budget lines have been the budget’s bugbear. To be honest, access to them on the part of organisations has been on an arbitrary basis. Often the European dimension to these organisations has not been any better off than that of hundreds of other organisations that have been operating without support. Now a legal basis is being established for the system and the question of assistance is to be for the Commission to decide. This measure must be implemented as soon as possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, 240 million people live in an archipelago that would stretch from London to Baghdad. Indonesia is massive in geography and population. It is the world's largest Muslim country. It is a mega-player in its region and has enormous potential. Were it to disintegrate, the implications for its neighbours would be catastrophic. I was there two weeks ago. It is a young democracy emerging from the oppressive years of Suharto. Habibi gave it press freedom, which is surviving, Wahid came in as symbol of the drive against fraud and corruption and there are still high hopes of his policy of devolution. He is under pressure from Parliament and street demonstrators and those ambitious to replace him. One of the benefits of dictatorship, of course, is often that the lid is kept on social, religious and racial tensions. Sadly the end of dictatorship so often opens the box and releases these ills. Timor, Moluccas, Aceh, Papua and now Borneo-Kalimantan all show this. The situation in parts of Kalimantan is intolerable and I back this motion totally. But what Indonesia most needs is our support for their efforts to find and fund solutions and any criticism from us must be constructive. Situation in Turkmenistan

Political group: PPE-DE