GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the liberal group had severe doubts as to whether or not to declare this resolution urgent. Indeed, the issues concerning the treatment of the President of the Nicaraguan Audit Office, Agustín Jarquín, by the Nicaraguan government have been around for over a year. It is, of course, a very serious matter which deserves in-depth discussion, but as far as we are concerned, we would prefer it if this was dealt with by the competent committee and not in this hasty manner. It is a political issue. Indeed, one cannot help wondering whether there was a political motive behind the Audit Office’s accusation that the democratically elected government is corrupt? Quite possibly. After all, Agustín Jarquín, now under arrest, is a possible candidate for the presidency. There is also another question. Does this corruption inferred by Jarquín actually exist within the Nicaraguan government? That too is possible because many say that Jarquín is unimpeachable. It is not up to us to make a party-political choice in Nicaragua. Mr President, the matter is now in the right hands, namely the courts in Nicaragua, and should therefore not be dealt with by this Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. I want to stress the vital importance of an ever more transparent administrative culture in the European Union if we are to gain the approval of its citizens. Obscurity leads to complete darkness, as we know. It is essential to simplify legislation. The public must be able to understand how this whole place works, and it is absolutely necessary to replace mind-boggling legal texts with something that is more streamlined, and I am in favour of that. It is unnecessary to regulate the details, as has been mentioned here. That is our disease. I would nevertheless like to make one additional amendment, which is already contained in this report. The Union supports the one-stop shop principle in all areas. According to this, people can always obtain the information and forms they need at one and the same point. As yet, however, the different institutions of the Union do not share a common website where the public could follow the progress of legislation. Discussions by Parliament, the Commission and the Council on legal issues and other projects should be accessible at one website address. The institutions at least need a common portal, like a one-stop shop, where all the necessary links can be found. The Commission and Parliament have become more transparent, but the Council has not. The Council is to have more power, which means more obscurity. This issue has to be addressed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I can only support the reasons adduced in this report, which is, by the very facts that it cites, an indictment of the current economic system. What is this economic organisation which forces half of the world's population to live on less than two dollars a day? An economic system which on the one hand subsidises set-aside and destroys or stores food so as to prop up prices, while on the other leaving 826 million people undernourished, 16 million of them to starve to death, is an absolutely criminal system. But the harsh reality of this statement only serves to underline how pathetic the conclusions are, especially the solutions proposed. While huge private interests pillage the planet, taking advantage of the poorest, and widening the gap between the rich minority and the poor majority, the European Parliament adopts powerless resolutions, knowing full well that summits such as those in Rio, Monterrey or Johannesburg will not change anything about anything. The European Parliament, like all representative institutions, is reduced to the role of a fig leaf, covering up the scandals which drive people to seek profits at world level. While agreeing with many of the statements made in the report, the Members of Lutte ouvrière will abstain in protest at the immense hypocrisy which characterises the activities of the European Parliament when it claims to be combating poverty. Remaining silent about why an economic system based on profit is so damaging, and remaining silent about the responsibility of the major industrial, commercial and financial groups for the extreme poverty, hunger and impoverishment of the majority of the world's population, is akin to remaining a passive bystander of crimes against humanity and thus to acting as an accomplice to them. IN THE CHAIR: MRS CEDERSCHIÖLDVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, in your speech you mentioned Finland, Sweden and Denmark as examples of this European economic and social model. The excellent levels of social welfare in these countries are due very largely to high taxation, and that includes business tax, taxation on capital and income tax. This is the way to create viable public services. Our common task now is to prevent tax competition, which would mean among other things the erosion of the foundation of these European welfare states. This kind of European prosperity is also based on tripartite agreements – we heard here how there are problems with this in some countries – as well as good labour relations and the fact that issues are discussed and lasting agreements are reached, with balanced growth achieved as a result. We also have to ensure that this forthcoming services directive, which, after the elections in June, the elected Parliament will be debating, does nothing to promote dumping, something that was spoken of here, but adopts the laws and decrees of the country in which the services are being produced. Environmental protection also creates growth and stability. We really have to ensure that we achieve sustainable growth which also allows us to look to the future. We will not build a European Union with short-term profits. We have to have sustainable growth, with the environment playing an absolutely key role.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, one undoubted reason why Members are so attentive is that they know that this report deals, among other things, with Eurostat, though not with the secret bank accounts but with the quite respectable matter of a proposal for a regulation which would require the Member States to submit quarterly data to Eurostat concerning financial transactions and financial assets and liabilities for all units classified in the general government sector. The proposal regulates the compilation and characteristics of quarterly data on each Member State’s financing expenses and the timetable for their transmission. In the context of the Stability and Growth Pact, these are crucial data, because they are the basis of a stable euro. In the budgetary situation in which several Member States find themselves at the present time and in view of chronic deficits in excess of the 3% ceiling, these data assume even greater importance as a means of accurately measuring the extent of the problems with a view to taking appropriate remedial action. The French, the Germans and others are already all too familiar with this situation. My report contains an amendment with which we seek to alter two points in the Commission’s proposal. First of all, the deadline for the transmission of quarterly data for the central government, state government, local government and social security funds subsectors is shifted from 30 June to 31 December of this year. This is logical, because June 2003 is now in the past. Secondly, the Commission is to be given the right to grant a derogation, not exceeding two years, for the starting date of transmission of these data in exceptional cases. This extension was requested in the Council by various Member States, and particularly by the countries that will be acceding to the Union next year, since these States would find it difficult, pending adaptation of their national statistical systems, to deliver reliable data on time. Such an extension, however, is without prejudice to the aim of full transmission of all data by 30 June 2005. I move that this amendment be adopted, so that we can dispense with a second reading of this proposal for a regulation, otherwise the regulation, which is already overdue, could not enter into force in good time. There is, of course, the possibility that some people here might prefer to continue working with nebulous data in order to conceal their country’s true financial position. Nevertheless, the Italians would be delighted if they could add this to the list of regulations that have been adopted under their presidency. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think it important that we send two clear messages today. The first must be that we want Turkey as a member of the EU and as a member of the European family. It will be good for Turkey, but it will also be good for ourselves. The second message must be that Turkey is faced with a number of tasks, including that of being honest about its history and its genocide of one and a half million Armenians, half a million Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syrians and several hundred thousand Greeks. In addition, there are the tasks – not only on paper but also in practice and in the real world – of improving the conditions in Turkish prisons, ceasing to keep prisoners in solitary confinement, guaranteeing the rights of minorities and ensuring democratic progress not only for minorities but, I would emphasise, for the whole of the Turkish people. There are the tasks of completely abolishing the death penalty and of getting the political process under way that is necessary if political life in the Turkish state is to be democratised. I have read my fellow MEP’s, Mr Lamassoure’s, report very carefully. I have to say that he is very diplomatic. I think the report is excellent, but I also think it needs to be more precise on a number of points, and a number of amendments have, therefore, also been tabled, not only by my group but also by other groups, and I believe that most of them must be supported. There is a single exception. I do not think that the EU should interfere in the matter of where Turkey has embassies. However, I also think that the report is sound, and I shall recommend voting in favour of it, but also, of course, in favour of the amendments tabled by, for example, my group.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, according to my group, a crucial element in the Brok report is the realisation that the European Union is, and should be, an important player on the world stage. However, if that is what the European Union does, it should do so in a way that is different from the United States. The European Union should not try to be a military superpower, but, I would say, a civil superpower. These points are hammered home in the report, and rightly. Our strengths should lie in diplomacy, trade and conflict prevention. These are, and remain, the core elements of common foreign policy. And let there be no misunderstanding about this: a military capacity forms part of this. The European Union should be capable of doing more than it is doing at the moment, but it should be capable of doing something other than the United States. This means, for example, that the first priority should be, as is stated in the report, to build our own rapid intervention force and not to focus on a NATO Rapid Response Force. This also means – and on that score I do not see eye to eye with the Commissioner – that more effective spending of what we are paying out on defence at the moment should be Priority Number One. I cannot explain to my electors that we need to spend more on defence if they know that current spending is so very inefficient. Anyone following the discussion in the media could be forgiven for thinking that the essence of the discussion between the EU and NATO was about headquarters. Let us be quite clear about this: it is not about headquarters. The United States is frightened that the European Union will develop its own, alternative view, and will come up with an alternative analysis of what security is – an analysis and a strategy that will deviate from those of the United States. I urge you not to be deterred by this resistance from the other side of the ocean. The United States does not benefit from having an obedient follower. It does, however, benefit from having a confident partner with its own vision. This means that parliamentary democratic control should form part of this vision. We can talk as much as we like about any vision whatsoever, but, if there is no Parliamentary monitoring in place, and if finances are the only concern from start to finish, then this vision will not become reality.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I speak on behalf of my colleague Mr Van Orden, who is absent today but who for many years has been directly involved in the work of overcoming the scourge of anti-personnel landmines. Most EU Member States no longer have anti-personnel landmines in the operational armouries of their armed forces. These weapons have indeed been banned for the past four years. It is only irresponsible armed forces such as those in former Yugoslavia and armed groups of non-state actors engaged in civil war and insurgency that continue to use these dreadful weapons. By definition such groups are not party to the Ottawa Convention to ban landmines. This resolution draws attention to the fact and seeks to find ways in which these groups can be influenced. This requires very careful consideration as we must take great care that we do not imply any sort of recognition of the legitimacy of these groups or of their actions. We do not wish to distract EU resources from the priority task of mine clearance and assistance to mine victims. We wish to bring this matter to the attention of all the states party to the Ottawa Convention that will gather in Managua in Nicaragua later this month.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I should like to begin by paying tribute to the work put in by the rapporteur, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, on what has turned out to be an extremely complex report, and for her patience and cooperation in taking on board a number of points which the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market raised in its detailed consideration of the proposals brought forward tonight. In my remarks I would like to commend the report to the House. I believe that it will result in an increase in protection for air passengers. However, speaking from a personal point of view, there are one or two issues which remain unresolved to my own satisfaction. Hence my tabling, with my colleague, Mrs Foster, of two amendments which reflect the need for these problems to be resolved. This basically centres around the dispute which Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has alluded to, which originated in my own country, the United Kingdom, as to the validity of the original regulation to which the new proposals relate. Until this legal dispute is satisfactorily settled it is my belief that the report should be held in abeyance. This position is complicated by two factors. The first is the fact that the Montreal Convention, which governs matters globally, has not yet been ratified by sufficient countries to give it binding effect. Nor is this likely to be the situation for some years to come. Secondly, as referred to by the rapporteur, there is the issue of extra-territoriality. Whilst, to a certain extent, a number of the amendments which have been proposed to the report improve the situation, there are still one or two issues which need to be addressed, in my opinion. We must avoid any regulatory imposition on airlines which, while quite rightly protecting passengers' interests, actually achieves exactly the opposite by imposing rules which render European companies less competitive than the rest of the industry. Unfortunately some clauses still contained in the regulation would result in just such a scenario. I hope the House will accept the amendments as a benefit to passengers. I commend the report to the House in its entirety.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report’s analysis of the first year of implementation of the regulation is relatively positive, with great progress having been made by the European institutions. I welcome the fact that an increasing number of documents has been made available to the public, that registers have been created and that the citizens are becoming increasingly aware of their right of access to the documents. This regulation is important in that it lays down new rights for public access to the documents of the Community institutions, and it is a major step towards establishing greater openness and transparency regarding their activities, strengthening the democratic principle on which the European Union is based. There still remain countless problems of access, the main one of which is the relatively high percentage of documents refused, with access to certain types of documents being systematically refused. It is regrettable that in 38% of cases the Commission invoked ‘unspecified exception’ as the reason for refusal. The necessary measures need to be put in place to achieve full compliance in the implementation of the regulation and to ensure complete transparency and the right of access to documents by the citizens. This right of access has been confirmed in the draft Constitutional Treaty, which extends the obligation to transparency to all institutions, agencies and bodies.

Political group: PPE-DE
I want to thank the Commissioner for his full answer and also to congratulate him on the efforts I know the Commission and, indeed, the Council are making to bring about more humanitarian and satisfactory conditions for democracy in that region. I draw the Commissioner's attention to the fact that many of the prisoners who are still suffering in prison without trial have been wounded and are ill, and no information has been made available to their relations. In fact, relations visiting or trying to visit these prisoners have been subjected to intimidation. No normal process of law has been put into effect against them. It is extremely important, because of the financial contribution we have been making in these areas, to make the authorities accountable to the public for the way these prisoners are being treated. It happens – and this is a new dimension to our relationship with these countries – that the three prisoners I mentioned have relations in Ireland and, because of the interaction between voluntary organisations in Ireland and Kosovo, pressure is being put on me as an MEP to find a solution to this problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, at the end of this debate, I am left with a number of questions. The condemnation of the dictator Saddam Hussein appears unanimous. Are we not forgetting, though, that in the eyes of some Muslims and even of huge groups of them, he is considered a hero? This is a major problem. Secondly, how far does this unanimity extend? Are we convinced that the resumption of weapons inspections will bring any closer the solutions we want? Do we think that these should be unconditional? Do we think we should set an ultimatum? Should this ultimatum be set by the UN? And what conclusions will we draw if nothing, or something, is found? In my view, all these scenarios should be thought through beforehand. Is the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a necessary or satisfactory reason to start a war? Or will we then want to enter into negotiations concerning their dismantling? Who will provide proof of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction? Some of our fellow MEPs are already saying that this proof is there because he had them before. On the other hand, a number of weapons are reported to have been destroyed during the second Gulf War. Are people in the EU agreed on the interests that are really at stake in the Middle East, on this region's stability, on the risk that the Gulf States are running? Not that they are models of democracy, but what will happen to them? What happens if a prior solution is not reached for Israel and Palestine? Are we getting any nearer to a solution? Is it the EU's intention to avoid a war against Iraq only in the short term? Is the aim to bring down Saddam Hussein? Or would we much rather broker peace in the Middle East, as the Palestinian issue lies at the heart of the problem? Should we not express our aspiration to defend human rights and democracy so that partnerships can be forged in future? In my view, the solution we need is long-term. I would also like to know whether the EU will take an initiative to let the UN play a prominent role in the Middle East once again? Apparently, this question was not even raised in Elsinore. Are the two European countries on the Security Council, namely the United Kingdom and France, on the same wavelength? Probably not, for the signs are there for everyone to see. I have a few more questions, but time is running out. However, I should like to finish with one final question. Is it right for Denmark to give itself one month to find a compromise which is also acceptable to the Americans if we establish that the European themselves are still struggling with so many problems? How many subscribe to Mr Schröder's opinion? Not only are we, along with Mr Schröder, saying 'no' to war now; we also want Europe to have the objective of establishing stable and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have asked for the floor simply to request that this legislative proposal be referred back to the Commission as unanimously voted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. This is not because we do not agree with it, but because it does not include synthetic alcohol and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has not found a legal basis to be able to include it. Therefore, I would ask Members to vote against the legislative proposal, so that it can be referred back to the Commission. (Parliament rejected the Commission proposal)

Political group: PPE-DE