GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in this debate on a point of order the term ‘nationalists’ has been used, which does no justice to the arguments of the aggrieved parties. My impression is that a number of other matters are involved, the question whether it is legitimate to distribute taxpayers’ money to parties and through government impose rules on parties that strengthen the distrust of citizens of what they see as a political elite. That is a problem. Parties should be bottom-up and not top-down organisations. Real parties do not emerge because the structures of a state require the organisation of a competitive struggle at election time but because there are people with common ideas, interests and activities. That is why it is rather artificial, at a moment when there is no European public opinion, to create parties from above in a forced way. I therefore ask for understanding of the objections which are something other than nationalism and I think that it mainly revolves around the question whether the European Union has the power to do such a thing, or whether it does not have the power, which is why Mr Krarup has already indicated that in that respect we are now on thin ice. I think that if such a measure were ever to be passed, we should all have to be certain that it does not conflict with previously agreed European rules.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one thing I believe to be true is that, with a report or a draft of this sort there are points that have to be discussed, one of which, for example, is the differentiation between the rules for refugees and the rules on subsidiary protection. We all, probably, have different opinions on it. In my own country, Germany, there could also be difficulties as regards the way we handle the reunification of families, if the whole thing is framed in such generous terms that we, in Germany, perhaps have to tackle it in a different way. On the other hand, though, it is of course a good thing that we at last have a directive, or are at least making the attempt to lay down minimum standards, which, once in place, will enable us to achieve our objective of preventing secondary movement. I can understand my fellow-Members from other groups not being in agreement with all points, but I would also remind you that we are delegates. I am not a minister of a nation state, and am therefore not obliged to take a stringent line and consider how to persuade and convince my Danish or Dutch counterparts. I am a member of a Parliament in which I enjoy the freedom to act according to my conscience, a Parliament in which I can contemplate visions and draft proposals about them. I can frame my ideas in such broad terms that, in the final analysis, they do not absolutely have to be passed by a Council in the form of a directive, but can be a parliamentary position paper and an eventual contribution to discussion. It is in this sense that I hope that we will pass this draft tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for four years we in the organisation Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), with 1 400 members from parliaments around the world, have been working for the ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC. We note with great satisfaction that the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July this year. In 1998, 120 states voted in favour of such a court – only seven opposed it, including the US. Seventy-six states have now ratified the statute. The court will constitute a vital tool for strengthening international law through legal instruments. No country, no leader, no government can avoid prosecution for serious breaches of international law such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is surprising that a country with such a long legal tradition and so many lawyers per square metre as the US can consider exempting its citizens from liability to prosecution for such serious crimes. What does the US have to hide? What criminals is it trying to protect? Exempting peacekeeping forces from such liability to prosecution would be devastating for women. This would in effect legalise rape, sexual assault and forced pregnancy, which unfortunately also occur with peacekeeping forces. The action of the US sends serious signals to the world. It is a dangerous and irresponsible path which George Bush has chosen, and the EU must react robustly.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, just now in his introductory speech, Commissioner Bolkestein mentioned two directives which are of great importance for the implementation of the internal market – the directive on public procurement and the directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. I am the rapporteur for these directives. Both directives address matters which are of considerable direct or indirect importance to the self-employed such as the implementation of free movement, freedom of establishment, citizens’ security, health and freedom in general and, of course, the safeguarding of civil rights. It would appear quite clear that the Commission is not taking sufficient account of the needs of the self-employed. The self-employed are the providers of intellectual services, not entrepreneurs, and they cannot easily be made subject to competition. There must be a definition in the Treaties, minimum rates must be established and the self-employed must be recognised on the basis of the training they have received rather than on the basis of their qualifications, which, moreover, differ from State to State. The associations and societies must be given due importance. The Commission’s plans for legislation in this area are inadequate and the self-employed are being penalised by this bureaucratic approach when they have the right to a social approach. The Commission and the Council are pressing forward in leaps and bounds with little consideration for the political positions of Parliament. I hope that what Commissioner Bolkestein said just now is a true reflection of the situation and that a proper dialogue is taking place involving the millions and millions of self-employed individuals, who are, I reiterate, the providers of intellectual services, not mere administrators.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Bastos’ excellent report highlights the dual necessity to integrate Eures into the Member States’ employment services and to involve local authorities and the social partners in the activities of Eures so as to bring about ever-increasing decentralisation of labour mobility initiatives. It will thus be possible to enhance and extend cross-border cooperation in training, the recognition of qualifications and the protection of pension rights, to which the social partners have made a decisive contribution with the promotion by Eures of at least 39 interregional trade union councils in the territories bordering on the States of Europe. This experience must be exploited and must certainly not go to waste, which is what would happen if the interregional trade union councils were detached from Eures and their existence and the funding of their activities somehow made dependent on the goodwill of each individual Union State, as would appear to be the intention of the Commission. The need for greater involvement of the Member States in the funding and running of Eures and the associated structures is certainly something we support, but the form and extent of this involvement can only be defined at Community level and involve all the Member States jointly and severally: in other words, it must not lead to the Commission casting off its responsibility for the running or even the continued existence of the interregional trade union councils. We have therefore tabled an amendment before the House with the consent of the rapporteur, Mrs Bastos, which proposes that the Commission and the Council be asked for reassurance on this point.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Maij-Weggen on the excellent job she has done. The democratisation process in Indonesia deserves due recognition and therefore support. One of the clearest expressions of this process, but also of the contradictions that make it so fragile, was what happened in East Timor. When the right to self-determination had been accepted, in the time between the popular vote and the recognition of the result, armed militias supported by Indonesian troops executed a detailed plan to destroy public infrastructure and thousands of homes, ruin crops and farming implements, and persecute the population, which, in terror, took refuge in the mountains and in West Timor. As part of a delegation from this Parliament, I was one of the international observers of the ballot and witnessed the Timorese people’s amazing thirst for freedom, but I also had the impression that as soon as we had gone nothing would be left standing. There are still contradictions like this in Indonesia, whether in the Moluccas, Aceh or Irian Jaya, and they are still manifest in East Timor too. The prosecution of those who committed crimes in East Timor and are now in Indonesian territory has yet to take place. It is unacceptable that they should escape justice because of a recently enacted law. More than one hundred thousand refugees remain in West Timor, virtual human shields for the originators and perpetrators of crimes in East Timor. I was in these refugee camps earlier this year. In them are those who committed crimes and those who witnessed them. The justice which is not being done and the refugee camps which are becoming permanent are areas for confrontation between the old and the new powers in Indonesia and reveal the fragility of the democratisation process. Only this week, top UNTAET officials were at serious risk when they left the Indonesian parliament building in Jakarta after meeting the country’s president. We can support the democratisation process, as we have been doing; what we cannot do is take the place of the protagonists in this process.

Political group: PPE-DE
In the last few years, the news has highlighted food scandals and consumers are rightly demanding to be very well informed about the products that they buy. The information given to consumers must be as clear as possible and as legible as possible, while avoiding increasing the number of categories. Therefore, for fruit juices, the sales name should not lead to any confusion. It is therefore essential to indicate to consumers the difference between a fresh fruit juice and a fruit juice made from concentrate. These two different names will enable people buying them to choose a product with full knowledge of the facts. In the same way, some fruit juices are produced by mixing fresh fruit juice and juice made from concentrate. Just marking it as ‘fresh fruit juice’ would be deceiving consumers. It is important that in this case labels should have an additional note indicating that the final product is also made from concentrate. The name ‘made with concentrate’ or ‘partially made with concentrate’ should then feature directly under the name, in sufficiently large type to ensure that consumers are informed. This measure also applies to nectars made from concentrate. These decisions are aimed at informing consumers as clearly as possible, but also at not penalising producers. The production processes for these two categories of products have technical, financial and organoleptic differences. The production of fresh fruit juices requires high quality treatment of products, particularly during the pressing and pasteurisation phases, while the production of fruit juices from concentrate does not involve the same requirements. - Cederschiöld Report (A5-0284/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, to continue what I was saying earlier, in actual fact, as we have seen in this Chamber, we very often find ourselves talking about immunity or about requests for waiver of immunity, according to procedures, application methods and characteristics which differ according to the origins or allegiance, whether national or political – more national than political if the truth be known, of each of us. Today, someone has raised this issue, which seemed to me, in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, never to have been analysed before. I feel that Parliament and the Presidency must make further endeavours – and we are doing – and reach a speedy conclusion on the matter for the difficulties that arise from the different laws of the nations to which we belong do not, when it comes down to it, make all the Members subject to the same conditions. In the case in point – as Mr Zimeray very rightly said – the Committee on Legal Affairs expressed a unanimous vote on the matter. It is true that, in politics, there is sometimes exaggeration, very often personal comments are made, and we have witnessed precisely that in this Chamber today. However, we remain democratically of the opinion that, however strong the expressions used by each Member of Parliament, each politician, may be, they must be considered to be political actions – although I do not mean that Parliament must not cover up for individuals – and therefore, in order to protect Parliament, immunity must not be waived. On behalf of the PPE, I therefore endorse the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, while making it clear that, if comments on the personal affairs and private, personal lives of all of us – which, I regret to say, are often made, as the international press is doing at present – could be avoided, it would be much better and would certainly be an indication of more democratic, more correct political behaviour.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like, as one Member has already done, to draw your attention to a letter that has been sent to the various Info-Points Europe, informing them that they are to lose their funding from the Commission. At a time when our democratic deficit is making itself increasingly felt, should we not be welcoming this kind of organisation, a network which functions to general satisfaction, because it is actually a tool for raising awareness about the European idea, notable for its proximity to the public? In fact, at the very moment of enlargement, on the eve of a crucial year for Europe, essential and vital resources are being withdrawn from our best information relays. We must also note that this stands in complete contradiction to the new information strategy that was adopted in 2002. If the administration considers the entry into force, on 1 January 2003, of the new financial regulation to be reason enough to withdraw these funds, then it should also be aware that it is shaking the confidence both of associations about the work that can be done and of the public authorities, who represent us in this field. I should therefore like to know how it might be possible, even before 2004, to envisage a way of supporting this network and subsequently perhaps to consider alternative ways in which it might continue to function.

Political group: PSE
European cooperation can be useful in solving cross-border problems. What could be more natural, therefore, than cooperation between neighbouring states, such as the cooperation which existed before the founding of the European Union in the form of the Benelux counties and the cooperation between the Nordic states? Such cooperation between neighbours is often preferential to expensive, impenetrable EU structures which are also difficult for the electorate to influence. Not one single EU rule should stand in the way of far-reaching cooperation, subject this to conditions or require that others join in. That is why I am in favour of a minimum number of rules and limitations affecting reinforced cooperation between neighbours, as long as such cooperation is not intended to disadvantage third parties. In practice, we can already see Euro countries and non-Euro countries emerging within the EU. They are not leader groups but reflect a diversity which, with 30 Member States, will only increase. That is why it is better to take inter-parliamentary cooperation and the right to diversity as a guiding principle throughout the EU: the Commission submits proposals, Parliament makes the final decision and national parliaments decide whether the Member States endorse that decision.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have approved the new regulation on action by Member States in the liberalisation of public transport services by rail, road and inland waterway, in order that this may be consolidated as a new single European market. And, with regard to this, our Parliamentary Group of the has tabled various amendments aimed at preserving aspects relating to the environment and sustainability in the transportation market, such as the rational use of energy and the fulfilment of standards on the control of emissions which contaminate the atmosphere, greenhouse gases, noise, etc, as well as giving priority to alternative forms of transport which make a better contribution to the much hoped-for reduction in traffic congestion. We have argued for the need to defend the quality of transport services, whether these be run by public or private companies, and we have stated that social conditions with regard to the health and safety of employees in these companies should be closely linked to the quality of services offered. We also think that liberalisation should not lead to an abandonment of the idea that passenger transportation is a social instrument and which supports the weakest groups in society, such as schoolchildren, trainees, pensioners and those living with some kind of disability, all of whom should continue to be protected through restrictions on ticket prices. Ticket prices should be standardised in order to facilitate the integration and interoperability of different transportation methods, including cross-border transportation, where timetables and service networks also need to be coordinated. Transport should be cheap and available throughout all regions, and should also guarantee a service to less populated and less prosperous areas at moderate prices. Finally, it is not acceptable to liberalise urban, suburban and regional transportation whilst remaining, as some governments are, opposed to the liberalisation of state transportation, as for example the passenger railways. Although it should be controlled, this market should be open to free competition throughout the EU.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is no secret that the Group of the wanted to introduce a stronger investigative tool, a committee of enquiry, in order to ascertain the truth about ECHELON, but unfortunately, the majority of this Parliament did not feel up to it. However, a temporary committee has been set up, which is something. Although a committee of enquiry might have revealed more secrets, I can now say that it is not the lack of facts which disappointed my group, it is the conclusions. Tapping can be necessary sometimes, but the improper tapping of our citizens and non-governmental organisations contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights, because it is disproportionate by definition. Although the European Convention on Human Rights has been mentioned, the conclusions do not state in so many words that ECHELON violates citizens’ rights. Similarly, it is not written anywhere that the United Kingdom and Germany must stop facilitating ECHELON. Of course, the world will not immediately change by a vote we take in Parliament, but that does not mean that that vote is unimportant: we need to make it clear what is and what is not acceptable. The Netherlands will soon be debating a law on intelligence and security services in parliament. This law legitimises ECHELON-type activities. An increasing number of governments want to narrow the information gap compared with other governments by setting up large-scale and improper tapping operations themselves. It is our task to stop this snowball effect by making clear, political statements against the violation of human rights. Otherwise, I have no choice but to vote against this motion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am positive that the penultimate step before Copenhagen will be taken in Brussels over the next two days on this exceptional policy, the European Union's policy of admitting ten new members. This step needs to be taken in a decisive and realistic manner which overcomes any petty perceptions and subsequent moves need to be determined by this step, not the other way round. I have just two or three comments to make as time is so short. First, Kaliningrad. Obviously, this problem needs to be resolved, not with a Gordian knot but with a clean sweep, by which I mean a harmonious, rational, functional solution that respects nations and states. Secondly, the widely discussed issue of the budget. We must not be mean and tight-fisted and we must not forget that the countries about to join the European Union have manpower in abundance but, unfortunately, limited resources. However, abundant manpower is what determines development and development is what we need to see. Thirdly, in connection with other issues which may have prospects or require decisions, the European Union of the 15 or of the 25, or of however many other members there may be, must remain an area of social cohesion, development and democracy. Clearly, therefore, any solutions to budgetary questions need to be resolved on the basis of these priorities. In other words, they must be predicated on the need for the European Union to maintain the values which it has already acquired and which must continue to apply, they must be predicated on peoples' priorities and not on petty political perceptions which, in the final analysis, are short-lived and are sometimes to do with antagonism of one sort or another, which gets us nowhere. Having said which, I am positive that two new steps forward will be taken over the next two days and, as we continue on this course, we at the heart of the European Union, the European Parliament, must generate the political spirit and climate which, unfortunately, tend to be lacking, reducing the debate from a debate on overcoming problems to a mean, tight-fisted debate.

Political group: PSE
As explained in my speech to the plenary I support the enlargement process and wish to see the applicant countries as part of the EU. But the inclusion of Annex XV in the Accession Treaty means that voting for enlargement endorses its inclusion. That I cannot do. I consider Annex XV to be a direct infringement of Parliament's rights. The worst part of Annex XV is that it enshrines in the Treaty the Agriculture ceiling from 2007 to 2013: the outcome of a shabby deal that was cobbled together by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, that was endorsed by the other Member States in Copenhagen and is now to be part of the Treaty. As chairman of the Committee on Budgets I find that to be an anathema to everything we have fought for. As someone who wants to see real reform of the CAP I find it to be an unbearable burden and something I just cannot agree with. This may seem to some to be a minor issue, but for me it is a point of principle that has to be made. Hence the reason for my abstention on all the final votes. - Schröder recommendation (A5-0089/2003)

Political group: PSE