GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Yesterday, we saw the arrest of 95 members of the NLD and the situation in Burma has become untenable. One of the key things we need to look at is the role of some European multinational oil companies, in particular the French-Belgium company, Total Fina. We also need to criticise the French government for the fact that they are backing this. Even the British government is more progressive when it comes to their policy on this. The British government has actually called on Premier Oil to withdraw from Burma. The French government should follow the example of the British government. It is unacceptable that European multinational companies are investing in and backing up a system where large-scale gross violations of human rights are taking place. When it comes to sanctions, we really need to answer the call that we should implement economic sanctions against the SPDC and that we should be ending all links between Europe and Burma based on trade, investment and, in particular, tourism. It is unacceptable that we should be investing in tourism in a situation where gross human rights violations are taking place, where people’s lives and liberty have basically been denied.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, for 60 years we have had two traditions in Europe and had no significant health problems. As long as we have acceptance of the upper safe limit, consumer choice should prevail. Millions of people in Europe have bought vitamins and minerals of their choice. Not only have they had no problems, but their health and well-being have benefited. Now we are faced not with a health measure but with a single-market measure which threatens to omit 300 items on this list from the 'positive' list of items available. These 300 items are currently legally and safely on sale in the shops of my country and yours, Commissioner. They are not oddball items – they are things based on boron, calcium, copper, iron, manganese, potassium, selenium, zinc and so on. If these items fail in 18 short months to get the scientific committee's approval or to get their dossier in, then they will come off the market. That is not a problem for large manufacturers, but it is a very serious problem for the small ones. The cost and time to them may be prohibitive, and if items go off the market, then it is the consumer who will suffer. If they do go off the market they may, as we have heard, go abroad, go offshore or appear on the Internet, at some risk to the consumer. What we need, Commissioner, is a simplified procedure for the items that have been omitted so that they can come onto the list quickly, and for that we need the 36-month timescale. However, may I say also that Emilia Müller has suffered one of the worst assaults by people outside this Parliament that any Member has had to put up with. It is one thing to be e-mailed; it is one thing to be lobbied; it is one thing to be mass-lobbied; but to endure threats of violence, bullying and harassment as she and her family have is something which this Parliament will not accept. I say that to whoever is doing it outside: lay off, because we will not allow our fellow Member to suffer in that way. She has more integrity in her little finger than those people have in the whole of their bodies and I demand, Mr President, that you suggest to the President of this Parliament that this matter be referred to the Legal Affairs Committee, with a view to seeing how a Member of Parliament under that sort of assault can be protected and allowed to do her job properly as a Member of this Parliament, as a rapporteur and as someone for whom we have great affection and respect. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I just wanted to make a brief comment on Mr Schulz's remark about equal treatment. I am one of the three permanent rapporteurs on immunity issues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. All I can say is that we genuinely do treat everyone equally. I also believe that your own approach in the Berlusconi/Dell'Utri cases is simply an expression of equal treatment. I, myself, am working on a specific case in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market in which we have been requesting a statement from the German authorities for nine months and have still not received a reply. In other words, these processes are quite normal; they are certainly not unusual. I fully support your approach towards these two immunity cases. I genuinely believe that the treatment of immunity is not a suitable theme for political discussion in the House. It is a legal, not a political issue. That is an important distinction which should be taken into account in the debate, and I am most grateful to you for your approach.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just like to draw the attention of the House to something which happened in Italy on Thursday night. Twenty ‘no global’ activists were arrested and kept in isolation on charges such as ‘subversion of the economic system’ or ‘preventing the institutions and government representatives from doing their job’. These are offences which have existed under the Italian penal code since the 1930s. They were introduced to stop anarchists and s from expanding their political activities during the period of fascism. If these offences had existed in a candidate country and were brought to the attention of all the European institutions, the country in question would not have been successful in the enlargement negotiations. I feel that this is an issue which is relevant throughout Europe and that such incidents must not be repeated either in the Fifteen or the Twenty-five. We too must keep an eye out for this kind of situation. We must discuss the issue or, at least, be aware that such things are happening.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, if I disregard the opinions of certain individuals, such as certain French Members of this House, it appears to me that this House is of one mind where these two reports are concerned. Our standpoint is still that which we took at first reading, and I do not therefore want to respond to the small minority of radicals that has just spoken, but I would like to address the Commissioner in the words of a great German poet: more courage, Commissioner, more courage! I believe, Commissioner, we should remind ourselves of how, in the summer of 1999, when discussing your presentation of what you were going to do in office, we made the observation that the question of a unitary system of air traffic control was one example of an effective European policy that produced demonstrable added value. It is because that was the position you took in 1999, and because your proposals were in line with that, that we, like Mr Schmitt, are rather sad that your final comment on the Common Position was that, if that was everything that the Council was going to concede to us, then you were satisfied. So, more courage, Commissioner; we want the second reading to take us down the road your proposals indicated; we want functional airspace blocks! To Mr Miranda, who spoke just now, and to a number of others who have spoken before me, I have to say that the Member States, and Eurocontrol too, have had forty years in which to carve out the airspace blocks in ways that make sound business sense, and they have never done anything about it. It is for that reason that we – Parliament and the Commission together – must do it by means of well thought-out legislation. So, Commissioner, as we come to the reports’ second reading, let us, who are the majority in Parliament, and the Commission, be more courageous if we are to have a European added value in the skies above Europe!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, this debate is not a technical debate, contrary to what we may think. It has become eminently political. Yesterday we honoured our institution with a political debate. Today, if 314 Members of Parliament yield to the strength of the lobbying of some car manufacturers, we should be doing ourselves dishonour. In expecting consumers to bear half the cost of the recovery of end-of-life vehicles, as Amendment No 38 stipulates, even though the common position states that all recovery costs should be borne by the manufacturer, Parliament would, for the first time, not be acting as the defender of the rights of the consumers and citizens of Europe, it would be turning into mere sounding box for different lobbies. We cannot accept this. It would be a precedent which would open the door to all sorts of pressure in many other areas. It would also be the first time that the European Parliament would be weakening a Council position, whereas usually we are complaining that their position is not strong enough. The free recovery system, for example, for old vehicles and raising the percentage to be recycled will increase recycling activities and the number of jobs this generates accordingly. Thus, for the consumer, for the environment and for the new jobs to be created in recycling, the Council’s common position definitely must not be amended. It is, as it stands, perfectly acceptable.

Political group: Verts-ALE
As long as the structural funds remain unchanged, there will be tension between the regional side and the European side. Viewed from the regional angle, this is about the regions’ own funding to which they are entitled and which they must be able to spend independently and as freely as possible. From the European angle, this is about European money that can only be made available under strict conditions for use in regions and cities and that must be demanded back if deadlines are exceeded or the planned spending plan deviated from. These clashing demands can only be brought into line with each other following much official, preliminary consultation and a great deal of inspection. This means that high expenses and much bureaucracy are involved in spending these funds. It might be preferable for Europe to confine itself to the redistribution of funds that can be freely spent for the benefit of investments in regions suffering from a disadvantage, a crisis or a geographical location that is economically disadvantageous, and keep interference in spending to a minimum, or eliminate it altogether. Such a change would allow European officials to be deployed on other tasks on which work still needs to be done and would put an end to the needless re-circulation of funding from rich Member States back to the same rich Member States. That might result in fewer propaganda hoardings sporting a European flag, but it would be far more effective.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Socialist Group welcomes very much the official visit to North Korea and to Seoul by the Council, Commission and the High Representative of the CFSP. Commissioner Patten, when he reported back to the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, said that the visit had gone ahead with modest aims, but those modest aims have been achieved and we welcome that. As a parliamentarian, I am rather disappointed that the delegation managed to fit in 75 journalists but could not manage any parliamentarians on the grounds that the delegation was a small one. I hope on future occasions the Commission and the Council might consider taking some parliamentarians along, particularly in the light of the fact that relations between North Korea and the European Union were pioneered by the European Parliament, over two years ago, when we sent our first official delegation. I welcome the fact that there were good talks with Kim Chong-il. Clearly North Korea is a state of concern. We welcome the fact that they are continuing their moratorium on missile tests until 2004. I recognise that at the moment they have very little option but to export military equipment. They produce hardly any goods that anyone wants to buy apart from military equipment. So it is hardly surprising that the No-dong I and No-dong II weapons which have a range of 1 300 kilometres have been sold to Iran, Syria and Pakistan or that the North Koreans are giving military aid to the Congo, Iran, Ethiopia and Syria. The problem will be if they continue to test the Taepodong, which will have a range of something between 4 000 and 6 000 kilometres. Obviously we welcome the moratorium. We welcome the further aid that is going to given in the form of food aid. We need improved access for European Union monitors to make sure that the aid is being distributed properly. We welcome the increased assistance in the agricultural sector, particularly in the life of what we have been told that there is now some recognition that reform has to take place. It is important to train North Koreans in modern industrial and clerical skills and we need to give aid in a non-nuclear energy sector as well as raising the textile quotas. It is important that we have a human rights dialogue and I welcome the fact that on 13 June that dialogue is going to take place. No one has mentioned KADO; the European Union is participating in the KADO programme for building two nuclear power stations in North Korea. Unfortunately, we have cut the budget this time compared to the last time and if we are serious about assisting Kim Dae-jung with his sunshine policy that sends exactly the wrong signals. We are very keen that diplomatic relations be established and I urge the Commission and the Council to consider placing an office in Pyongyang rather than making the Beijing office responsible for North Korea. There will be no day-to-day contact if that is the case. There is a distinction at the moment between the EU and the US and we hope we can move forward together, but if we cannot we will have to move forward separately, because the direction we are going is the right one.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we must remember that the world is in disarray, and not only as a result of globalisation or the new international situation following 11 September, but also as a result of exclusion, privilege, corruption and favouritism. This situation affects Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean. We must therefore take advantage of this Summit in Madrid to consider the situation frankly and achieve pragmatic conclusions and convince ourselves of the need amongst all of us to ensure that the whole of society functions correctly and its quality of life is improved, and we must seek a road towards peace and stability on the planet, particularly in these two geographical blocks – the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean – which are united by history. In this regard, respect for human rights and the rejection of political impunity and intolerance, as well as the strengthening of democracy and the incorporation of civil society into political decision making must be the key priorities of our future joint action, within the framework of respect for the sovereignty and independence of peoples. In Madrid we must, therefore, strengthen interinstitutional political dialogue in order to ensure a climate of trust and achieve suitable relations.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to restrict my comments to the report by Mr Bruno Trentin. First of all, I would like to thank him unreservedly for the excellent contribution that the European Parliament will make, through this report, to the broad economic policy guidelines. I shall make two points. My first point is that, like the Commission and the Council, the European Parliament attaches great importance to the drafting of the broad economic policy guidelines. To put it simply, if this is to remain a purely academic exercise, we are wasting our time. The broad economic policy guidelines will only be meaningful if the national parliaments can be involved from the outset; so that, when drawing up the budgets of the Member States, they can bear the broad guidelines in mind. They will only be meaningful if, from the outset, the governments – particularly those of the eurozone – agree to increase coordination of their economic policies, whether this is in terms of the budget, taxation or in the area of structural policies. Otherwise, what we are doing is pointless. And we realise this when it is almost too late, when the Commission is forced to put in place early warning systems. We have a useful tool, we must use it to improve coordination. In the same spirit, my second point relates to the contribution that the European Parliament can make to the broad economic policy guidelines. We hope that, through the Convention perhaps, but also by using a specific method, the amendments that Parliament has drawn up are taken into greater account when the broad economic policy guidelines are finalised. And in this respect, I would like to highlight three of the amendments which have been proposed to you by your committee. The first is Amendment No 6 which relates to the role of social partners and macro-economic dialogue in order to promote an employment policy. I believe that it is absolutely essential. The second is Amendment No 7, and I urge some Member States to examine this closely when they come to cut taxes, as we can only contemplate reducing taxes if there is a harmonious balance involving the lowering of debt and re-balancing in favour of public investment. The third amendment will come as no surprise to you. It in fact relates to two amendments, Amendments Nos 16 and 18, which quite rightly stress the importance that we must give to services of general interest, in terms of their contribution to social and territorial cohesion of the Union, and their ability to create jobs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Saddam Hussein is evil. His regime is evil. His deeds are evil. We have seen what he can do to his people, and we fear what he might do to the wider world. He is totally defying the international community. As Commissioner Patten said, the world would be a much better place without Saddam Hussein and with a different regime in Iraq. Achieving this, however, is easier said than done. Furthermore, it is fraught with enormous complications and very, very great risks. Even the Pentagon has reservations about a possible attack. We must, of course, use all diplomatic and political means in order to get Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions and allow the inspectors in and in order to solve this issue. There must of course be evidence, to which we all have access, of the existence of weapons of mass destruction and possible collaboration with al-Qa’ida. The EU must, naturally, stick together and insist that any attack must be subject to a UN Security Council decision. What happens, however, if we fail to find a political and diplomatic solution, if Saddam Hussein continues to defy the international community, if we do obtain proof, and if we manage to get a common decision in the Security Council? What discussions have been taking place in the Council? What forward planning has there been? I do not mean military planning. Rather, I am wondering what preparations have been made to support the forces of democracy, the Iraqi opposition and the Kurds in northern Iraq and to look after our relations with the wider world. I am absolutely convinced that these issues were discussed in Elsinore, and I would therefore be grateful if the President-in-Office of the Council could say something about them.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to pay very warm tribute to the rapporteur. This regulation is a great success. It means that the eight remaining Member States yet to ratify the Protocol can now begin the process. The Protocol will therefore come into force very soon, marking the start of a new era in international environmental law, an era of international genetic technology law. The Biosafety Protocol is the first international treaty to regulate genetic technology, and it does so explicitly and exclusively. It is to be hoped that the voices still raised to dispute that there is any difference between genetically-modified and conventionally bred organisms will at last fall silent. This House has greatly improved the regulation before us on numerous points, often in exemplary cooperation with the Council. On many key points, the regulation goes far beyond what is required by the Biosafety Protocol itself. The fact that all groups support the compromise reached is therefore encouraging and a hopeful sign for the implementation of future environmental agreements. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Nice Summit has shown that Intergovernmental Conferences have reached the end of their useful life. We are on the eve of eastward enlargement, a turning point which is throwing the strategy of doing things step by step into crisis. If a response is not found to the democratic deficit of the European institutions, the Union will not be able to count on the support of the peoples. The list of problems tackled in Nice is long but, as President Prodi made quite clear, there was insufficient focus on the institutional reforms and the role of Parliament. It may be that we went to Nice with too many ambitions. Parliament's ambition does not, however, mean that it lacks a sense of responsibility. If we gave in to the realists, we would sweep the Charter of Fundamental Rights under the carpet and be content with a free trade area governed by the large corporations and national interests. Something is wrong. The young federalists who called upon the heads of government to be more courageous, to have the courage of the fathers of the European Community, have understood this. We need to set in motion a large-scale debate on the future of Europe: this must be the post-Nice process if we want to revitalise Europeanism in a profoundly different environment.

Political group: PPE-DE