GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I should like to ask you whether you do not find it strange that the positions you have adopted are not those held by judges, or by anyone independent; instead they are the Council’s own political positions on terrorist organisations when nowhere in the press is there any mention of the matter. Where the nuclear programme in Iran is concerned, however, there is an enormous amount of detail in the scientific press and elsewhere on Iran’s use of heavy water, which is only used in the construction of nuclear weapons, and the Council is doing absolutely nothing and confines itself to waiting for any future reports that the Iranian Government might submit.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what purpose do the cosmetics with which many women beautify themselves serve? One poor elderly pensioner said to me: ‘I have beggared myself with these cosmetics which have made these women look so beautiful. I have spent all my money. Now I am penniless, a poor pensioner, but I am happy because I have enjoyed my life’. Another pensioner, however, said to me: ‘I, on the other hand, resisted the temptations of these women who use cosmetics and now I am a rich pensioner, but I regret the fact that I too did not have a happier, more enjoyable life with more contact with beautiful women who use cosmetics.’ I did not know what to do, so I looked at Mrs Roth-Behrendt, who I am sure uses cosmetics which have not been tested on animals. What a beautiful lady Mrs Roth-Behrendt is! It is patently obvious that the cosmetics she uses are useful, maybe even more so than those tested on animals. Well then, we must follow the example of Mrs Roth-Behrendt, and so I voted for the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Piecyk, I should first of all like to congratulate you on the revision of the decision. In a situation such as the one before us, we can look ahead or back. I have heard a few people make some very valid comments already. We are talking about networks, water networks, and intermodal networks. The environmental interests are obvious, as are the efficiency interests, but what is still lacking is some kind of driving force. What we are now laying down in fixed numbers, which are better than what the Council is proposing, will need to be tackled differently. If we talk about revising TEN directives, we will need to consider goods flows, shifting goods flows and the way in which, in consultation with the Member States, we can exert pressure on the investments which ought to take place. I am therefore keen to find out what our next step will be.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Florenz and our shadow rapporteur, Mrs Van Brempt. In this debate, I would like to outline three aspects which I believe to be of the utmost importance, namely prevention, the role of the Member States and fire safety. The aim of the directive is to prevent environmental problems. It seeks to promote eco-design. Producer responsibility is the key word in this connection. Producers can do a great deal, such as providing sustainable products and ensuring that appliances can easily be repaired, for example within the space of half an hour. They could use special colours in the case of hazardous components, so that these stand out upon disposal at all times. Also, in order to make the consumer more aware of the waste issue, I would call for the introduction of a histogram that illustrates the extent to which waste can be recycled. There has been a great deal of discussion about the role of the Member States. This proposal outlines the salient points concerning the collection of discarded appliances and the funding of recycling. With a view to subsidiarity, Europe should not want to lay down, to the last detail, how the basic principles should be transposed. It is a different matter in the case of product standards and the use of hazardous substances. Here, it is important for us to retain the internal market. In my view, it would be unacceptable if we were to encourage all Member States to go ahead and set their own standards. The internal market forms an important basis of European cooperation. It is our task to ensure that products traded on the internal market all meet the highest standards in terms of the environment and safety. Finally, I should like to spend a moment on an important issue, namely that of fire safety. It is our duty to ensure that public safety is guaranteed. Even if this involves hazardous substances, unfortunately. However, we need to reduce the harmful environmental effects of flame retardants to a minimum. If clean alternatives are available, we should use them. From an environmental point of view, I therefore call for a ban on a few brominated flame retardants. We must pull out all the stops, where possible, to develop and use environmentally-friendly alternatives.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the euphoria that has erupted in this House, which I also detect among the leading European politicians, is understandable, but I do, of course, ask myself if the people feel such enthusiasm too. Without a doubt, Europe is an unprecedented success story, and I will just mention the key words ‘peacekeeping’ and a ‘place of trade’. Europe evolved as an economic area and, above all, in the hope of creating peaceful cooperation in Europe after 50 years of war. Today we face what may be our next major challenge, in that we are in a position where we are too small as individual nations to be able to position ourselves in a globalised world, but we become strong enough when we come together. All that will, however, only count if we are capable of creating an awareness of Europe in the minds of 450 million Europeans, and this Parliament, too, is called upon to do so. I doubt that it is there at the moment and we will see how big the turnout is in the European elections. We need a constitution, we need a common foreign policy, but the Europe of the regions too must not be lost as a value. As a Community of shared values we must, of course, export values as well as goods. Only when we, in Europe, are capable of winning back the leading role in the fields in which we were strong, above all, in the area of knowledge, will we have the credibility to also export values such as overall quality of life, peacekeeping and sustainability as a basis for responsible policies. During recent decades, though, we have encouraged people to be aware of what they are entitled to, and this will not help Europe grow; at best, it will increase unemployment, poverty and corruption. This is why I believe that we as individuals, the regions, the Member States and the EU as a whole, must have higher expectations of ourselves; not of the Community, the State or the EU, but rather each part should have higher expectations of itself. This is because what matters is not just stressing what we have achieved, but instead focusing, above all, on what we intend to do, which is a good deal more. That alone that will make us strong.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I cannot vote in favour of Mr Carnero González’ report for the following reason, among others: I am in favour of intergovernmental cooperation, while the report is clearly supranational in character. The rapporteur’s proposal that the EU be given legal personality is a threat to intergovernmental cooperation within the EU. Transforming the EU into a legal person would be one more step towards a European federation, and that is something I cannot support. - Carlotti report (A5-0050/2002) Fatuzzo . – (IT) Mr President, this report by Mrs Carlotti discusses widely, comments on, assesses and calls for changes in the way the work of the Joint ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly is organised. The ACP states, as we know, are the states of Africa, Central America and the Pacific, and are somewhat dispersed throughout the world. They would like to emulate Europe by implementing similar economic organisation and, I hope, political union as well as far as is possible. I endorse the contents of this report – and therefore voted for the motion – but I hope that the forthcoming session of the Joint ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly will include debates on the issues of welfare, social exclusion and assistance for the many poorer people in the ACP States. - Langenhagen report (A5-0045/2002) Fatuzzo . – (IT) Mr President, it must be the hand of fate, even if today is not Friday: this is the last explanation of vote that I will have the pleasure of delivering in this Chamber in Strasbourg today, 14 March 2002, a very important date for me. However, the time is also important: it is almost lunch time and so the topic of conversation is fish, the fish processing industry. I am very much in favour of facilitating the development of the fish products processing industry in Europe, as this report advocates. The fish will not like the idea, as we know, but if it means that more jobs will be created then I feel that it is a good thing for Europe. I therefore hope that the proposals of the Langenhagen report will genuinely be implemented so that more people can be employed in the European fish processing industry.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we do indeed appear to be having problems understanding each other in this Chamber. Because of the policies of the European Union, olive oil producers are truly at the mercy of big producers who negotiate among themselves and try to buy olive oil at unbelievably low prices. This situation has reached dramatic proportions with the abolition of the albeit downgraded intervention system and the system of private storage, let me assure you is, quite frankly, a joke. So how are we to deal with this situation? Will an improved intervention system providing rudimentary protection for producers be reintroduced? And given that, on a global scale, olive oil is so important to the human body and plays such an important role in maintaining farming populations in disadvantaged areas, why is it that the quotas, particularly for Greece, are so low? Are you going to increase them? And with the widespread practice of mixing olive oil with sunflower seed oil, what does the Commission intend to do to put a stop to this practice, which is harming producers and consumers to the benefit of industrial racketeers? In this spirit, does the Commission believe that this phenomenon can be tackled through guile, i.e., by increasing the quota for Italy, which is the main country responsible for mixing oil, and reducing the quota for Greece?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I agree with most of what has been said tonight. I should like to focus on the EU contribution to the Global Health Fund. Two amendments have been tabled to make it clear that we are talking about the EUR 1 billion from both the EU and the Member States. I am pleased that Mrs Sandbæk will accept that amendment. President Prodi has supported this target. It sounds like a lot of money, especially at a time when public finances are tight, but it is not unrealistic. In fact, it is about one third of the increase announced this year for the farm budget in the EU, so it is not unthinkable that we can achieve this amount. We can afford it and so can the other developed countries. Mr Khanbhai asked what the woman who had these illnesses would think. What would she have thought, turning on her television last week, to see President Bush announcing a multi-billion-dollar space programme of truly astronomical amounts? It is about time that we resolved the problems in this world before flying off in search of others.

Political group: PSE
I wonder whether we have the right Commissioner answering questions on this subject given the delay to the package. I accept that Mr Fischler continues to be committed to a meaningful reform of the common fisheries policy, but I wonder whether he would comment further on the suggestions that improper pressure has been put on other people in the Commission. Perhaps the President of the Commission might be asked to make a statement on this matter. Also could he confirm whether the Director-General of Fisheries was moved as part of a routine package? Was it the case that every other person who was moved under that package had only a few hours notice of that move? Is it the case that the particular difficulty in getting agreement on the package relates to a very specific part of the package and, if so, why is it felt necessary to delay the entire package of reform?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasise certain points that have already been raised. I would stress the support of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, first of all, for speeding up negotiations and achieving a new agreement, which certainly meets the planned schedule and, if possible, speeds it up in order to send a positive message with regard to the good will of the European Union in this integration process. Positive signals have already been sent, including Commission aid of EUR 200 million, which we believe should be supplemented, as stated in the motion for a joint resolution. The use of preferential commercial mechanisms should also be used in order to promote commerce and economic recovery in the region. We believe that this process of greater integration and greater cooperation by the European Union, in conjunction with international financial bodies, should be used to carry out and consolidate the search for robust, credible, rigorous economic programmes to restore confidence in both economic recovery and in investment flow, which the Mercosur economies, and in particular Argentina, clearly need in order to overcome the serious economic, social and political situation they are currently experiencing. We also believe that in the various references that have been made to international financial institutions and to the International Monetary Fund in particular, the Argentine crisis, once again, shows the need for the European Union to act more directly, with its own voice, to address this type of subject within these bodies.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is no cause, not even a just cause, which can justify the killing of innocent civilians. Terror does not pave the way for justice: it is the shortest road to hell. We condemn and deplore this appalling crime; we utterly condemn those who planned and perpetrated it. Our empathy with the suffering victims, with the pain of their families and the pain of the entire American people at difficult times such as this is no less than the expression of our total commitment to preserving the unique nature of the human race. These are not my words but some of the things Palestinian intellectuals, politicians and ministers such as Mr Yaser Abed Rabbo, Mrs Hanan Ashrawi and Mr Mahmoud Darwish have said. They are powerful statements, and they give us hope for they come from people who live and suffer under the Israeli military occupation. At times like these, we must all – people, States and institutions – act with the utmost responsibility and determination to remove terrorism from the face of the earth and put a stop to the globalisation of poverty, injustice and war for ever. ‘Words must replace arms’ as Mr Solana said. Therefore, no words must be allowed to provoke hatred or promote the ‘dead or alive’ cowboy culture: as the women against war say, between killing and death there lies a third way, which is life. No one must be exempt from training in love of peace and respect for the law, especially Heads of State. Today, a glimmer of hope for the future has come from Palestine and Israel with the announcement of a truce. It is a faint chance, I know, but it is vital that we do not let it go. The European Union has contributed to the possibility of dialogue being resumed. The Union’s political role must grow and, if and as this role grows, the Union must uphold the law with increasing determination. Just as we told Mr Arafat that he must be resolute in controlling terrorism, so we must make it quite clear to Mr Sharon that he cannot continue to get away with seizing Palestinian land, building settlements, killing and besieging Palestinians in villages or, as he did yesterday morning, destroying the Gaza port which is still under construction and funded by the countries of the European Union. We must take tangible action, reassuring the Palestinians that they will have a safe State to live in and assuring Israel that nobody is questioning its existence, that it is its colonialist settlement policy, not its existence, which is in question. Yesterday, in the Lebanon, I and an Italian delegation met President Lahoud. He stated quite clearly that he rejected terrorism, but he stressed emphatically that resolution of the Palestinian issue and development of political and economic cooperation with Europe and the Arab world are essential. We must believe in our own ability to bring peace and respect for the law.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I was pleased with Mr Prodi's call for more political enthusiasm with regard to enlargement. I can inform my fellow MEPs that as a member of the Convention on the future of Europe, I have the privilege of already working very closely with our colleagues from the candidate countries and that their commitment and enthusiasm for the European project are a pleasure to behold. What Mr Gollnisch said, namely that nobody in this Convention has given any thought to what a Union with 25 Member States would need to do, and whether this would be different from 6 or 15 Member States, is incorrect. I am, however, concerned about another matter. If we want to make a success of this Union of 25, I do believe that the Convention members should aim a little higher in terms of a strong and democratic Europe with proactive institutions. It is also very important, in my view – and I am addressing a point made by Mrs Thyssen here – that our enthusiasm for this enlargement and this political European project does not remain confined to European political élites. The people must also be involved. I was therefore particularly pleased with Mr Prodi's call for information campaigns intended for the public at large. We at our end all do our utmost to explain to the citizens what enlargement is about, but we cannot do this alone. There are, however, sufficient arguments to suggest that enlargement will offer answers to people's questions rather than raise new problems. I would therefore like to join those fellow MEPs who ask how the Commission, the Member States and the Heads of Government can help us in our duty to inform. The issue of monitoring and safeguard clauses are of particular importance as a way of reassuring the public because it demonstrates, Commissioner Verheugen, that we take enlargement seriously. You spoke about monitoring in the context of police, justice and the internal market. I would like a guarantee from you that this monitoring procedure and the safeguard clauses also apply to social policy and environmental policy, as these are, after all, very closely connected to the internal market. It is particularly in these areas that you could offer reassurance to the public, in my view.

Political group: PSE
As a legacy of its colonial past, the developing world has largely become reliant on the sale of cheap raw materials to rich countries. Agriculture, cattle farming and mining provide the foreign currency to buy expensive industrial products from the EU, the US or Japan. This exchange is to the detriment of the poor countries and gives them little opportunity of narrowing the gap. This is why free trade and exports do not solve their problems as long as the former are offset by expensive imports. Moreover, the flow of profits from the poor countries to the rich countries has always been greater than development aid from the rich to the poor countries. Under pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, many countries have had to greatly reduce their expenditure in the areas of education and health care and to reduce their taxes on foreign businesses. Much of what they earn is not spent on further development but on paying back old debts. The rapporteur and the Committee on Development and Cooperation are right to note that the capacity of poor countries to maintain the most necessary provisions has declined very considerably and that the events of 11 September have only aggravated the situation. That is why it is necessary to cancel the debts and increase the amount that rich countries provide to poor countries to, at least, a standard figure of 0.7%.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am grateful to the Commissioner for his presentation. Of course, radical reform of the CFP was long overdue and the Commission is to be congratulated on producing a dynamic first package of proposals, particularly in view of the concerted effort to derail the reforms, which we were speaking about at the beginning of this meeting, and the attendant storm of controversy that this clumsy bullying tactic created. I welcome the proposals to make permanent the 6 and 12-mile zones which are essential safeguards for fisheries. I am delighted to see significant devolution of management and conservation controls to the Member States within these zones. Indeed, devolution of management is a core feature of these CFP reform proposals. The creation of regional advisory councils involving fishermen, scientists, representatives of the aquaculture sector, marine ecologists and even the recreational angling sector, together with regional politicians represents a breakthrough in stakeholder involvement. I applaud the bravery of the Commission in demanding an immediate end to the bizarre spectacle of subsidising modernisation and new building of vessels in some Member States, while subsidising the scrapping of vessels in others. We all know that there are far too many fishermen chasing too few fish. We all know the EU fleet capacity must be cut. We must therefore insist that all public aid be switched from modernisation and restructuring and new building to scrapping. However, as regards overall capacity reduction in the EU fleet there is great concern about the Commission's figures. According to my calculations, on a country-by-country basis, the northern Member States who have fished primarily in the North Sea, the Baltic and the Atlantic will suffer a 21.3% cut in gross tonnage. Meanwhile, the southern Member States who fish in the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and the Bay of Biscay will experience only a 9.2% cut in gross tonnage. Taking individual examples, the UK will be required to scrap 23.1%, Belgium 25.3%, Denmark 27.3% and Sweden will face a staggering loss of 49.7% of her gross tonnage. Meanwhile, Spain, with by far the largest fleet in the EU, escapes with only a 9.4% cut and Italy with the second largest fleet only suffers a cut of 7.3%. People are wondering if the Commission has bowed to bullying pressure from Spain. We will closely scrutinise these figures in the committee. The Commissioner said that we do not want to go down the road of everyone being equal, but some people being more equal than others – that seems to be exactly the road we are going down with these proposed cuts. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE