GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the United States, with just 3% of the world's population, is able to produce approximately 30% of the world’s goods and services. China, with six times the population and covering a much larger area, produces just 3%. Russia now ranks below Switzerland in terms of gross domestic product. What I mean to say by this is that the United States clearly enjoys a position of unprecedented political and military hegemony. It is also fair to say, however, that the US has achieved this on its own merits. I believe we must conclude that, if Europe wants to fulfil all its potential, we must do so in loyal cooperation with the United States. This loyal cooperation does not mean that Europe has to issue a blank cheque; Europe has its own positions in relation to the death penalty, the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, extra-territorial laws and trade policy. We must also bear in mind that relations between the European Union and the United States are based on common values, on a shared history, and I believe it is important that we do not forget that the trans-Atlantic link is in the European Union’s genetic code and in a shared passion for freedom. Furthermore, I believe it is important not to forget that there is an extraordinary degree of interdependence in the economic and commercial fields. Four-fifths of the new investments made in Europe today come from the United States and we must not forget that the 15 current Member States of the Union invest more in Texas, the home State of President Bush, than Japan invests in all 50 States of the Union. I would therefore like to express my agreement, Mr President, with a fortunate phrase by Commissioner Patten, which I often use in my speeches, which is that everything we want to achieve as Europeans we will be able to achieve much more easily if we cooperate with the United States and I am sure that the United States can achieve what they want if they cooperate with us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like firstly to congratulate my colleague, Anna Karamanou, on the report she is presenting today, which contains an enormous amount of information and which will be very useful when trying to resolve some of the problems we are facing today. We are fundamentally talking about democracy, Mr President, because we are talking about equality and freedom, the combination of which should result in democracy. Democracy has not reached the women of the Balkans. Trafficking in women, domestic violence, difficulties accessing reproductive rights, lack of political participation, unemployment, poverty and prostitution are the reality of thousands of women living in the region. Each country has its own distinctive reality. In Albania we could emphasise the serious increase in the trafficking in women and children for sexual exploitation. Bulgaria is entirely lacking in mechanisms for creating equal opportunities between men and women, which is a prerequisite for transposing our rules. Trafficking in women and girls in Bosnia Herzegovina is also increasing. In Croatia, violence against women goes unpunished. In Greece, we are faced with serious problems in terms of the political representation of women. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the sexual abuse of Albanian and Roma girls takes place on an almost daily basis and the legislation does not include any law relating to the crime of trafficking. In Romania there are crimes on ethnic grounds, mainly against Roma women. These women have practically no access to contraception and forced marriages and poverty are also part of their reality. In Serbia and Montenegro, there is a very clear increase in trafficking in women, also influenced by the arrival of Kafor troops. In Turkey, violence against women is widespread and sentences are still reduced for what are so wrongly termed ‘crimes of honour’. We must open our eyes, Mr President. We must pay attention to the situation of women in this region and we must not move ahead without taking account of the daily reality of thousands of women and girls living in poverty, exploitation and hopelessness. The European Union must serve as an essential lever, as the incentive for these countries to commit themselves seriously to human rights and freedom for their citizens. No cultural tradition can be placed above universal human rights. There cannot be first- and second-class citizens. Inequality for women in south-east Europe must be a priority for all of us, because we are talking about democracy and not about women's problems. We therefore call for exhaustive monitoring of the accession agenda in relation to the candidate countries, and greater solidarity with women, for this is what they expect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a friend of the large Cypriot community which I represent in London, I have always supported peaceful reunification of Cyprus. However, I have never underestimated the practical and political difficulties created over the 30 post-invasion years in which Turkey has moved 120 000 mainland settlers into the north, when they do not share the common historical heritage of the island and generally do not speak English or Greek, previously the bicommunal languages. The Annan III Plan has gone a long way towards settling differences in a fair sui generis way. However, I have received hundreds of e-mails from my Greek Cypriot constituents who are concerned that this plan offers no guarantees on Turkish implementation of troop withdrawal and territorial and property restitution. It is interesting that even the Greek Cypriots – the lucky ones who have been promised the return of their homes – seem to oppose the plan. They also object to mainland settlers being granted citizenship, as this would appear to reward the aggressor and violate the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the settlement of outside populations by the occupying power. Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos has rejected the proposals and called for a 'no' vote by the Greek Cypriot community. I personally believe it is best for outsiders, including Members of this House, not to put any pressure on a referendum process as this would be perceived as interference in Cyprus's sovereign affairs. Furthermore, if both communities do not give their free consent and the arrangements break down in the future, blame will be apportioned to the players who leaned on the Cypriot people to get a 'yes' vote. The British Government is prepared to cede some of the sovereign base territory surplus to its needs, if this will help. I, like many of my colleagues, wish the referendum process well and will support the outcome of the vote on the 24 April, whichever way it goes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome Mr Laschet’s report, comprehensive and ambitious though it is. It comes at a sensitive time for both the European Union and the United Nations. I want to refer in particular to the UN Development Programme. The report made in 2002 on the subject of Arab human development was described by Time magazine as the most important publication of the year, and more than a million people downloaded it from the UNDP website. It had particular relevance for the EU since it was the impetus for the recent Commission communication – for which I am currently rapporteur – on reinvigorating human rights and democratisation with Mediterranean partners. Last year’s UNDP Arab human development report stated that – subject to fieldwork surveys – the appetite for democracy in the Arab world was, at 60%, the highest of any region in the world. Compare that, for example, with Eastern Europe, where the figure was 30%. The Arab world also logged the highest rejection of authoritarian rule – the figure in this regard was 80% – and was indeed the third highest in favour of gender equality in higher education. So the perception that many have that the Arab world is not ready for democracy is undermined by the United Nations’ own reports. I hope, therefore, that the Council and Commission can, as it were, put our money where our mouth is, and redirect some of the enormous funds available for good governance, the development of civil society, democracy and the rule of law, which, in the external field – the responsibility of Commissioners Patten and Nielson – amounts to EUR 1.9 billion a year. By contrast, the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights – a rather smaller fund aimed at the ex-Soviet Bloc – which I had the honour to set up a few years ago, amounts to only EUR 106 million. That is an indication of the distortion in spending which we need to address, and in particular the priorities with which I hope the European Parliament will play some part in helping the Commission in the coming years.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, anything which is designed to encourage and foster closer dialogue is to be welcomed and closer dialogue with the fishing and aquaculture industry is something that must be encouraged. But not only the industry; we must widen the dialogue to include associations which are active in the environmental and development fields and allow for an increased role of specialised research bodies. A two-way flow of communication must be encouraged, not just one-way communication. My party has always advocated greater consultation with the industry. Indeed, a key advantage of a regionally-based approach to the CFP would be the involvement of those directly affected, the fishermen themselves, in the decisions which affect them, thereby furthering the goal of conserving fish stocks through sustainable fishing and offering long-term viability for the fishing-dependent communities within Europe. In addition to any reform of the Advisory Committee as part of the current Europe-wide assessment of the CFP, we have another opportunity for Europe to find better ways to involve fishermen in the execution of fisheries responsibilities, by expanding the principle of regionalisation. Involving the industry and other interested parties in the localities would provide a system which more adequately reflects the needs of the fishing industry and promotes, rather than hampers, compliance with the CFP. Ensuring that we have proper consultation with civil society too, in particular fisheries and environmental NGOs, will ensure that the Community fisheries policy adequately reflects the aims of conservation and sustainable development in the fisheries sector. But NGO involvement needs to be meaningful, not just token, and we need to work hard to ensure that is the case. Integrating those engaged in fishing-related industries into the decision-making processes and supporting the fishermen are prerequisites for the success of any future fisheries policy and an essential element of the CFP. Yesterday, we had some controversy over parts of the Cunha report, particularly the suggestion of quota penalties. If we are to have meaningful consultation then this is exactly the kind of proposal which ought to be consulted upon and I regret that my motion to allow time for that was not successful here. I hope that we can learn from these mistakes and mean it when we say – as in this report which I support – that we want to improve communication and liaison with fishing industries and those affected by fisheries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Lagendijk on his excellent report on conflict prevention, a subject on which Parliament’s position has always been very clear. There can be no doubt that the best way to win a war is to prevent it from happening in the first place and in order to do this there is no better weapon than to be able to see it coming. That is to say, to find the underlying causes of war and to work to resolve them. In order to do this, it is essential that we do not take a solely horizontal approach – an approach quite rightly proposed by Mr Lagendijk –, that is to say, one that includes all of the European Union’s common policies, but also a global approach, which includes the whole of society. From this point of view non-structural methods to promote reconciliation are important, above all in those regions emerging from conflict. Without these methods, all of the international community’s peace efforts, or those of the very local communities which the conflict has created, could come to nothing, given that the least dispute can once again light the flames of hatred that had provoked or been the cause of the conflict in the first place. We need – and I address this particularly to the Commission – to dedicate not only more attention but, above all, more resources to education for peace programmes, along the lines of the work carried out by Mr Mayor Zaragoza when he was the Director-General of Unesco and which Kofi Annan reminded us of a few days ago. On the other hand, if control of the arms trade is very important, then so is the traffic in diamonds and raw materials. In this respect, I would also ask the Commission to tell us which methods it intends to adopt in order to improve, and make more efficient, the code of conduct with regard to the control of the trafficking in diamonds, in particular, given that, as the European institutions and the United Nations themselves have reported, on many occasions the fight for raw materials is behind many of the world’s conflicts, especially in Africa.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, rapporteurs, Mr Bolkestein, I should like to reflect upon the word cowboy. I have carried out research into this industry for years, and I do not think that we are dealing with a cowboy society, but rather a cowboy industry. It is widely known that this industry is quite unhealthy. The rewards in this industry are quite low. It is a very fragmented industry with very many drivers operating on a small scale. There are also large companies that have gradually turned small drivers into self-employed or pseudo self-employed drivers. In short, there is a lot to be done. Working hours are being fiddled, and so are collective labour agreements as well as many other things. Against this backdrop, we bear a special responsibility, particularly regarding international transport, and we have duly taken this on. One of the first things I did, or was allowed to do, when we came here was related to the Willy Betz construction. This was a case comparable to Kralowetz, but on a smaller scale. The trucks were of very high-quality, people ensured that all kinds of things were satisfactory, except for the work permits and a few other things. That led to this drivers' attestation directive. Fortunately, we are now in a position where we can welcome a second, very important directive on the organisation of working times. In my opinion, more loopholes in the legislation will need to be filled in future. Against this background, it is perhaps very good that the information and consultation directive – I should like to use the word historic – be adopted, for the very simple reason that, in the course of time, many large international transport companies have, in fact, been put under a flag of convenience, a process which often did not involve participation. They, in fact, turned drivers into self-employed drivers, or contracted them out to small self-employed entrepreneurs. There was no participation there either. We are now in a position where we can tackle issues of this kind more effectively.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, last year, the majority of MEPs in this House voted in favour of Friday morning sittings. Recently, however, a certain number of MEPs have, here in Strasbourg, attempted to prevent other MEPs from working during these sittings: I denounce this very undemocratic attitude, especially as those who did not want others to work were still receiving their per diem. I should also like to say this. We have recently taken a further decision and, from next year, there will no longer be a sitting on Friday mornings. I have received an e-mail from a Dutch MEP, however, saying the following, in English, and I quote, “If these amendments”, that is to say, for there not to be a sitting on a Friday, “are adopted and under the existing rules Members who cannot travel back to their home country on Thursday evening will still be able to sign the attendance register on Friday”. (Applause) Mr President, I think it is scandalous that MEPs are encouraged to stay here on Friday mornings anyway, in order to sign the register and to accept payment without doing any work, and I hope Parliament will have the courage to alter the existing rules. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my name has been added to Amendment No 23. I did not sign that amendment and do not support it. I shall therefore vote against it. (Parliament adopted the decision) President. – As most of you will be aware, Parliament has adopted this text in accordance with Article 190 of the Treaty. I will forward the text to the Commission for its opinion. The vote on the motion for a resolution will be taken once Parliament has received that opinion, which we expect tomorrow morning. Mr Rothley, congratulations on all the work that you have done on this issue over many years. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I would like to thank you, Commissioner, for your reply and your efforts with regard to the funding of the World Anti-Doping Agency. In recent days, the sports press in our country has reported that there were problems with the funding from the European Commission. I would like you to clarify whether these problems have been resolved after the meeting of Sports Ministers yesterday in Brussels and whether, if this is not the case, the Commission intends to channel this money towards other means of fighting doping or to stay with the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am going to concentrate on the legal issues, which are what is most worrying right now when it comes to the structural aspects of the EU. The Council is in danger of infringing Articles 8 and 10 of the European Council Convention, together with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, freedom of expression, respect for private life and the protection of personal data. That is something people cannot do much about. Because there is no balance of power in the legal area, the terrorist legislation, which is entirely necessary, is in danger of undermining democracy in the long term. The intergovernmental model is out of date. The European Parliament must become a co-legislator and the EU’s Court of Justice be given full powers. The Council cannot be turned into a so-called state within a state. On 11 September, the EU’s structure in terms of pillars ceased to be at all effective. External and internal security issues became ever more closely connected. Vigorous measures to combat terrorism and serious crime are now required. These must nonetheless go hand in hand with increased public control and legal protection, especially when it comes to what are known as the principles of due process, such as, no punishment without law, proportionality, the presumption of innocence and the right to a defence and to be tried before an impartial court. These rights must become unconditional at EU level. The Laeken Summit must signal the start of openness and democracy, which are prerequisites for successful enlargement. They require a convention on a mainly parliamentary basis, obviously with a substantial number of members from the EU institution closest to the people. The Convention should be able to work towards producing a proposal, so that people in future know what it is they are to adopt a position on. Anyone who wants to develop the EU and make it better and larger should support the thinking that is being done in terms of devising a constitution which is characterised by an effective division of power and which, it is to be hoped, will develop out of today’s excellent reports.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I try to adopt a practical approach to this issue because I have one of the biggest art auction houses outside of London in my constituency. They had raised their fears about these proposals and I went back there recently and we looked at some case studies together. We took paintings from a recent auction that would have been affected by this proposal. With one item there would have been considerable difficulty in tracing the artist's family; only tracing agents and collecting societies would have benefited. In another case, the item would undoubtedly have been sold elsewhere, i.e. in America. The one artist we were able to contact who would have benefited was not interested and said it would all be too complex to help him or his family. I am afraid this leads me to the inevitable conclusion that we do not need this, and that without international agreement in place, it is one piece of internal market legislation that we can do without.

Political group: ELDR
The authors of these resolutions are starting from the idea that media concentration has accelerated substantially. In the quest for the philosopher’s stone that would allow pluralism to be preserved, the European Commission is being inundated with requests. Some believe we should organise a broad consultation of professional bodies. Others think we should consider the political, economic and legal implications of a European regulatory framework or other regulatory options that would allow freedom of speech and the pluralism of the media to be safeguarded. A third group believes we should draw up a directive that sets limits for media ownership, or propose restrictions on the appropriate use of advertising resources in order to guarantee free competition. All these are ridiculous proposals whose only function is to imply that the European Parliament is a pillar of democracy. Most newspapers and some television channels belong to press groups which, in turn, belong to proprietary trusts of companies in many other fields: the likes of Vivendi, Lagardère, Bouygues and a few dozen others play a decisive economic and social role and are more powerful than the State and far more influential than the electorate. In the face of these powers, governments like the European authorities only bow down and respect the speculative stock market profits and board secrets.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, after the Council’s failure to achieve unanimity in 2001, new perspectives opened up at Nice. A new legal basis was created and qualified majority voting came into force. This is the background to our current debate on the new proposal for a Regulation. This proposal does in fact signal some progress in Europe, but I cannot forbear registering my disapproval – consternation, even – on noticing that the recognition of European political parties as legal persons has not yet been confirmed. Furthermore, we have only just reached the stage of dealing with their funding ... These are the reasons why this report, and the perseverance and tenacity it reveals on the part of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, has earned my full support for the clarity and even-handedness with which the original proposal is explored. I am referring particularly to the report’s discussion of recognition of the parties’ legal personality, clarification of the scale of the resources available to them, and openness regarding their Community funding, which should be subject to normal audit inspections. The report holds the Commission responsible for administering financial resources, relieving the European Parliament of that burden in order to avoid giving rise to unnecessary suspicions. Unlike the proposed Regulation, the report permits European political parties to use their funds to subsidise the activities of national parties and conduct European election campaigns. The approval of this Regulation will be the first great achievement of the institutional framework on which European democracy rests. It paves the way for the urgent completion of the Statute for Members and the essential uniform electoral law for the European Parliament. I hope that the institutions involved in the legislative process will now assume responsibility for their actions. Mr President, a statute for European political parties, with transparency of financing as its principal theme, is urgent and essential.

Political group: PSE