GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank Mr Brok very warmly for his astute and very balanced report. I am glad of one thing that he makes clear in it, namely that it is not enough for us to produce a European security strategy as a constructive response to that of the United States; on the contrary, we must also show how it is to be achieved. That is why we need a two-stage plan of the kind proposed in the Brok report, with, as its first step, the formation of a European crisis intervention force for evacuation operations and humanitarian tasks. What worries us at present is our relationship with the United States and especially their reaction to these proposals and to those made by the Convention, which has put forward the idea of a mutual defence commitment for the countries of Europe. This causes concern to the United States, which take a critical attitude towards it, as they do – vehemently – towards the proposal for enhanced cooperation between a number of European countries. Then the proposal was made for a European armaments agency to combine our capacities, and our friends and allies on the other side of the Atlantic objected to that. There is one thing that we have to make clear here: on the one hand, our friends demand that we should develop our capacities and abilities to play a greater global security role and to make our contribution in this area. If we want to do that, we have to combine our capacities, and that, after all, is what these proposals are all about. We must, then, be clear in our own minds, and make it clear to the Americans, that if we combine our capacities in Europe, that is not being done only for Europe’s benefit, but also for that of the United States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as one of the proposers of the candidature of Oswaldo Payá for the Sakharov Prize, I would like to thank you and other Members of the European Parliament for your efforts, thanks to which the Castro Government has finally allowed Oswaldo Payá to leave Cuba and, above all, return, so that he can receive the prize which this Parliament has awarded him for his peaceful struggle for reconciliation of the Cuban people and for areas of freedom. Mr President, the decision of the recent Copenhagen European Council is a victory for freedom and democracy in the face of the two totalitarian regimes which desolated Europe. This is an historical step which should not make us forget those people who are still deprived, as Oswaldo Payá puts it, of the right to rights. Therefore, Mr President, and in view of the European Union’s commitment to democracy and human rights, I would ask you, on behalf of this House, to urge the Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular to process the Varela project, which has become a draft law thanks to the more than 11 000 signatures accompanying it, so that the people of Cuba can finally regain their voices and freely determine their own destiny.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank my colleagues for their excellent work in drafting these reports. This has been a long and demanding exercise in which patience has been truly put to the test. Producing a report on safety standards in particular has at times been a real game of cat and mouse with the Commission and the Council. Luckily, however, the institutions began to see eye to eye last autumn and Parliament has been able to discuss the current version. In its proposals, the Commission began to make slightly curious assumptions. The timetable with regard to the issue of waste was pulled out of the air and is completely unrealistic. Regarding funds, the Member States must have the chance to decide on the form funds and reserves should take, as long as they ensure that a certain amount of funding is available if needed. The Directive on safety standards was in that sense funny in its original form in that it did not speak any more about safety than it did standards. Furthermore, with regard to definitions, many concepts remained, and still partly remain, very much up in the air. For a long time it was unclear as to whether there would be any standards, when they might possibly be introduced, what shape they would take, who would formulate them, where they would apply, and so on and so on. As has been said, both rapporteurs have done some excellent work tweaking the reports to make them more realistic and practical. During its presidency Italy played an important and conspicuous role in the Council and helped take the package forward. I hope and believe that Ireland will continue to use the same constructive and cooperative approach as its predecessor, Italy. It is still unclear what the added value of the proposal for safety standards will be. It goes without saying that the role of the national supervisory authorities will have to be called into question. Cooperation between the EU, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Western European Nuclear Regulators’ Association must be stepped up. Owing to its obvious lack of resources and know-how, the Commission cannot now nor in the future have anything but a coordinating role in cooperation on nuclear safety. In its proposed format, then, this is not any complete directive package, but, as I see it, those who are in favour of safe and environmentally friendly nuclear power will have no alternative but to give their support to both reports in their present form. I am for high safety standards and voluntary cooperation between the Member States and the authorities.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am requesting the floor for a point of order, if you will allow me, although I have no intention of taking up any debating time. I simply wanted to say that, without going into the pros or cons of the system for listing questions and putting them in order, I believe that my question and the question from Mr Ortuondo are very different, despite what he said a moment ago, although I admit that they involve the same issue.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, from an Irish point of view I welcome the compensation clause and the solidarity fund because Irish football clubs are the cradle for many young footballers who go on to play in the English premiership and beyond. I would like to ask the Commissioner a couple of questions about that. First of all, I assume the solidarity fund is a general fund. Is there any chance that a portion of the transfer fee for under-23s might go directly to the amateur club which nurtured their skills? You also need to look at the footballing academies in England to which young footballers are taken from Ireland at a very young age. Will there be some compensation for them? The scandalous exploitation of young African footballers is a problem which I would ask you to look at again, because it does not seem to me to be addressed by the ban on inter-club transfers. Agents will still find a way of getting round that. I recognise that this was a difficult compromise which does address the problem – the potentially disastrous consequences of absolute freedom of movement – while at the same time recognising the need to respect the new law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, congratulations to Mr Rocard on his report. It is every bit as important as the procedure concerning supplementary pension schemes that has got underway. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I would once again like to stress that the present report concerns supplementary health insurance and not health care as such, although obviously the two cannot be separated. Supplementary health insurance presupposes a statutory system of entitlements and provisions. This system, which is secured by the government, is required to provide sound, adequate, accessible, and hence affordable, health care. The better the statutory system, the less need there will be for supplementary health insurance, and the less significant it will be. However, technological progress and the demographic situation with regard to dejuvenation and the ageing of the population, mean that supplementary health insurance is not surplus to requirements and is even indispensable in some cases. This is an upwards trend owing to the reorganisation of the social security systems in certain Member States. At the same time, this presents an outstanding opportunity to make people aware that they must take responsibility for themselves in these matters. Because in the same way that we ought not to transfer the whole burden to individual citizens, nor should we expect the state to shoulder the entire load. Supplementing collective solidarity mechanisms with private or group insurance is completely in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. The EU has already produced a piece of legislation on supplementary pensions in the form of a Green Paper, which has resulted in a draft directive. So information has been gathered, research has been carried out, the systems in the various Member states have been investigated, etc., which is certainly the right way to go about it. It stands to reason that the Member States are ultimately the ones responsible for their system of social security. But, if insurance, and therefore supplementary health insurance, are offered within a common market, then this presupposes common rules on competition, insolvency, discrimination, transparency and suchlike.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Stevenson, Mrs Stihler, ladies and gentlemen, I would particularly like to ask Mrs Stihler and Mr Stevenson to pass on my profound expressions of sympathy to the fishermen of the Shetland Islands and of Scotland as a whole, as well as to fishermen in all the regions of Europe, in fact, which are directly affected by this tragedy. Our knowledge and experience to date, especially off Newfoundland, is not encouraging. Moreover, we cannot exclude the possibility that we have already passed the point of no return, the point beyond which not even the most radical measures will afford sustainable cod fishing in the future. Ladies and gentlemen, I can only say to you that while we sympathise with the victims of this disaster, we must also draw the right conclusions from it. We must ensure that our biological resources are no longer decimated on the say-so of an irrational common fisheries policy, and that this tragedy never happens again anywhere else in Europe. Actively aided and abetted by the Commission, the Council has recently opened up most of the Azores Exclusive Economic Zone, and is now threatening to allow predatory fishing methods, including bottom trawling, throughout much of that Exclusive Economic Zone. That goes against the democratic will of this Parliament, and against the opinion of the scientific community all over Europe. By adopting this measure, the Commission has taken a step which might lead to a repeat of the tragedy we have witnessed in the North Sea, this time in those sections of the Central Atlantic Ridge that have up to now been successfully protected from depredation. We urgently need a new fisheries policy, therefore, that enshrines in Community law the conventions of international maritime law, the right to property as defined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the precautionary principle, always preached and never practised. We need a fisheries policy that does more than reel off obituaries in the aftermath of measures that neither permit nor encourage sustainable fishing. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, dear Nicole, I would also like to thank you on behalf of my Group for the work you have done over the last two and a half years. In particular, I would very much like to say that our Group has been truly proud of you every time you have stood up for human rights in the world. You always immediately took a stance in situations in which people’s lives were under threat. I remember that case in which Ghanaian children died in the hold of an aircraft. They sent a message to Europe which said how difficult the situation in Ghana was. You showed no hesitation in promptly adopting a position on the matter. You also invited Commander Massoud to Parliament last spring, just as if you had foreseen what was coming, and you boldly appeared in public beside him. I am quite sure you also jeopardised your own personal safety on many an occasion in this way, and it is for this kind of courage that I wish to express my sincerest thanks. The European Parliament, which has always been keen to act as the European Union’s moral conscience, has actually managed to acquire a human face during your term of office, and that face has been yours, for which I thank you. You have also bravely reflected the majority view in this Parliament in situations in which that has not been very easy. I remember when we were discussing here Austria’s new government: you put in words what the majority in this Parliament felt, that our hearts were not entirely in it. That cannot have been easy for you either. But now things are changing, there are going to be new faces, and I want to wish you all the very best for the future. Perhaps, as someone in my Group has already called out, you would have been a sparkling presence in the newly set up Convention. You are just the sort of person I would have liked to see leading it. At present I am not sure if I am happy about what has been done, but I wish you well in any case. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on a point of order, there was one specific piece of information that I asked for from the Commissioner. It was about the agenda of the joint Council meeting on 27 February. Could he tell us if and when we can get hold of that agenda, what will be on it and what kind of report we can expect from that meeting?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, unfortunately most people have left at this stage but I want to draw the House's attention to the murder by loyalist paramilitaries last Friday of Martin O'Hagan, a journalist. This is just one more example of the grave human rights situation in Northern Ireland. Human rights lawyers have been assassinated as well by loyalist paramilitaries. Only a few years ago, Rosemarie Nelson, the mother of a young family, was assassinated by loyalist paramilitaries because she was a human rights lawyer. There is a serious matter. We often debate resolutions in this House about human rights lawyers and journalists being assassinated in the exercise of their duty in other parts of the world. Here is a situation within the European Union that has been going on for a long time. The situation is extremely grave. Journalists have the right to expose wrongdoings, human rights lawyers have the right enshrined in international law to represent people in courts. Yet they are being prevented from doing so and in fact, those brave enough to do so have lost their lives. It is a real tragedy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, you said that the European Union was unable to compensate farmers for their losses. I cannot believe that Europe would be prepared to abandon them in their plight. How are you planning to resolve this? My second question is that you outlined to us a plan to unleash and rebalance the market on what consumer estimates was this based, 10%, 20% or 25% less? My third point concerns the cultivation of protein-rich crops on set-aside land. What impact do you expect this to have on reducing our deficit and our level of imports?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I rise to ask you if you will join with me in expressing your concern to the Turkish judicial authorities about the delays in bringing to trial those persons involved in the affray that took place in Galatasaray, Turkey on the occasion of a football match with Leeds United in April 2000. This terrible event led to the murders of my constituents Christopher Loftus and Kevin Speight. A local man, Ali Umit Demir, has now been convicted of these murders. However, he has appealed against the original sentence, and now, along with others involved in the original affray, is awaiting the start of a retrial. The preliminary retrial hearing has now been delayed twice, once in July and again in September of this year. The third date for the hearing has now been arranged for 11 December 2003. While I am very grateful for the interest, concern and assistance shown in this matter by the Turkish ambassador to the EU, Mr Oguz Demiralp, I would welcome the support of the President of Parliament in sending a letter to the Turkish judicial authorities seeking assurances that the legal proceedings will go ahead with no further delay. I am sure the President understands the distress the families of the murdered men are experiencing, caused by the lengthy and drawn-out proceedings for the retrial, which have only added to their original grief over this matter.

Political group: PSE
I am opposed to nuclear energy and opposed to the nuclear package. Nonetheless, I wish Mrs de Palacio an excellent year and, above all, very good health. That being said, our Parliament must not be led astray by the Commission on nuclear matters. I am adamant that what we have here is a concerted campaign to misinform and brainwash our populations, who are more and more sceptical about the nuclear issue. The Commission would like to convey the impression that, with the wave of a magic wand, it is settling the issue of the management of nuclear waste, whereas thirty years of research have ended in failure. Nuclear safety in the power stations of the new Member States would be better guaranteed without putting some new standard in place or by proposing to grant loans to the nuclear industry, thereby giving it an advantage over clean, renewable energy sources which have difficulty gaining a foothold. Whereas all opinion polls show that the problem of nuclear waste, some of which – it must be remembered – has a life span of millions of years, is our fellow citizens’ main worry in environmental matters, the Commission considers, in view of its project, that burying nuclear waste is apparently the solution, and this without scientific proof. If, by any chance, the European Parliament were to come out in favour of burying radioactive waste, this would be a disastrous political signal for the inhabitants of Bure in Lorraine, the prime site for carving out in a deep clayey stratum a laboratory designed for testing the reaction of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Without any comparative study and without any democratic European debate on the future of nuclear waste, this decision would give the Bure site its one-way ticket for burying European nuclear waste and would turn it into the nuclear dustbin of Europe. There is still time to respond by asking the Commission to try to come up with something better regarding waste management, both by proposing that waste be stored underground within the power stations and, above all, by putting in place new, demanding standards where nuclear safety is concerned. Finally, a last question, if you would allow me: how does the Commission intend to set about asking France to provide the public with wide-ranging information on the transport of nuclear material, when this issue has been classified as a top-secret defence matter since last August.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this agreement is very important, not just because it will be useful in the fight against international crime but also because this is the first time the Union as such has negotiated an international agreement on this matter, which binds the Member States and takes precedence over any bilateral agreements they have concluded. The rules and criteria adopted will therefore serve as useful benchmarks for similar agreements with many other third countries, and that is another reason why they must be considered carefully. The Union is bound by the provisions of the Treaties and the acts signed by its institutions. In matters of respect for fundamental rights, it is bound by Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union and by the Charter on Fundamental Rights, which lay down more stringent guarantees than those provided for in third countries and, in particular, in the United States – I too am thinking of the European citizens still imprisoned at Guantánamo – and it is therefore these provisions of the Treaty, not respect for individual rights in general, which must be referred to in the EU-US agreement. The reservation not to cooperate if the accused is liable to face the death penalty is expressed in relation to extradition but not – as it should be – where judicial cooperation is concerned. This is a requirement that binds not just the Member States but the Union as such too, which does not have the power to conclude agreements which provide for derogations from this principle. I therefore consider Article 9 of the agreement on judicial cooperation to be inadequate. Then it is absurd that the Council should conclude agreements with third countries which it has not yet implemented within the Union because the Member States have failed to ratify the agreements or because of failure to implement framework decisions which have already been adopted. It is also absurd that, as provided for by Article 10 of the agreement, a request for extradition from a third country might take precedence over a request from a Member State to hand a person over made by virtue of a European arrest warrant. We must therefore remedy these shortcomings, and the agreement will then be a model for European Union cooperation with third countries to combat international crime, with due regard for the fundamental rights which the Union acknowledges all human beings to have.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am becoming more and more inclined just to stand back and watch us and watch you in silence. I am tired, so tired of these repeated debates where it is so difficult to make progress: it would, however, be a silence in which you could hear the muffled voices of those who have been killed, who are calling for peace and justice, as Izzat Ghazzawi and Nurit Peled said this morning; it would be a silence which tells the consciences of all men and women that there can only be peace in Palestine and Israel if the Palestinian people is allowed to exercise the right to live in its own State, existing alongside the State of Israel, in mutual security. We must make this peace possible and not just by providing economic aid. We see it every day. What we build and our citizens pay for is destroyed by shells and bulldozers: from the airport to the port; even the anti-terrorism laboratory was destroyed the day before yesterday. I support the positions of Commissioner Patten and the Minister, but there can be no economic development if there is no release from Israeli military occupation. Europe is resolutely taking this line. A decision must be taken, even a unilateral decision, to establish international protection for the civilian population. There is no equality between occupied and occupier. We must take a balanced approach but not be afraid to make political choices. For peace to be achieved we need clear measures, for our benefit and for the benefit of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, during the summer, following one particularly deadly attack, we were able to hear, broadcast by most television stations across the world, a Palestinian leader, someone who works closely with the prime minister, make a declaration to the effect that the Palestinian Authority should indeed once and for all commit to combating terrorism. This was too much, however! It was too much for Arafat, who precipitated the crisis in his security services and who forced Abu Mazen to resign. President Arafat’s beatification by the international institutions does not alter the appalling fact that we are still waiting to hear a renunciation of terrorism. Today, it is Arafat who is responsible for the Palestinian suffering, having sabotaged several attempts to secure peace. He is the Saddam Hussein of the Palestinian people and I hope that they will be able to rid themselves of him!

Political group: ELDR