GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Solana, one victim of the recent bombings in the Middle East, in which Israeli civilians were targeted, has been the willingness of moderates to form coalitions. I think one has to distinguish between murdering civilians willy-nilly, pursuing possible terrorists or, on the other hand, setting a 7-day deadline and positively inviting the radicals to promptly wreck the possibilities for dialogue. Israeli settlement policy, which is to be continued, provides us with examples of this sort of thing, as does the hopeless existence which drives Arab Palestinian refugees to turn themselves into weapons, and the consideration of the idea that they should return to their original homes and thereby put a question mark against the State of Israel's long-term viability. We also see it in the destruction of infrastructure on Palestinian territory, and that in areas that have nothing to do with counter-terrorism, but – as Commissioner Patten rightly said – destroy prospects for development. It is for these reasons that we have to make it clear that we, the European Union, have to make a fresh start, and it is perhaps not right that you, Mr Solana, are going there to play for high stakes in a week's time, followed by the American representative the week after. So we shuttle hither and thither and get nowhere. Why do you not, for once, go there together in the same week in order to make clear that this is a joint European and American initiative to hammer the point home that we will no longer allow things to go on the way they are. Both of you must go there together and take funds with you in order simultaneously to give hope and guarantees of security. We must find a new point of departure, and we will not do it in the ways we have used so far, nor – and this remark I address to Mr Sakellariou and others – by adopting resolutions apportioning guilt in a one-sided way, because then we are destroying the opportunity to be intermediaries. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Commission proposal and the report follow up and flesh out the policy set out in the White Paper on competitiveness, advocating the full liberalisation of the transport market. The ultimate aim is to increase the return on capital. Proclamations about safe transport and environmental protection are cancelled out by the philosophy of all-out, unaccountable competitiveness. The report welcomes the fact that a good deal of progress has been made with regard to liberalisation and competitiveness in transport. Using demand as its criterion, it highlights the advantages of road transport and focuses on the creation of high capacity north-south and east-west corridors. At the same time, it insists on the need to privatise the railways as a precondition for making them profitable. It also supports market access to port services and stresses the need for a uniform taxation and costing policy for transport. The Commission and the report are indifferent to the impact this policy has and will have on the standard, safety and cost of transport to the general public. It supports the single European sky, the abolition of national FIRs and flexible civil and military use of airspace; in conjunction with the general border changes taking place in the area as a whole, this spells danger for the security and national independence of countries such as Greece.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wanted to thank Commissioner Wallström for her reply. I have no doubt that she is using all the means available to her to try to combat this scourge. Even so, it must be stated that the situation is very serious both in the European Union – the future enlarged Europe – and at world level. Let us also remember that it was difficult to accept this link between health and environment, and that has often been an excuse for doing nothing. Today, it seems to me – and this concerns me a great deal – that Members and the politicians responsible are still looking for excuses not to act and give the excessive cost of investing in the environment as an excuse. I am concerned, Commissioner, because it seems to me that we do not really have our finger on the pulse as regards the health situation in the enlarged Europe. Have you succeeded in integrating the health situation in Eastern countries and our health situation into EU policies? Today, in fact, we no longer need to prove that there are links between health and the environment and similarly between poor health and a poor environment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
This communication from the European Commission on the integrated management of the external borders of the EU is designed to ensure that we have an area of freedom, security and justice. We can only approve the establishment of coordination between the Member States over external border control. In order to guarantee security within the EU, in particular following enlargement, we need to: - ensure mutual trust between the Member States with regard to border control, - combat all kinds of internal and external threats created by terrorism and - combat illegal immigration. Having said that, I cannot support the repressive, security-obsessed thinking behind some of these proposals, even if, and in particular if, it is currently popular at European level, and particularly in France. We are too inclined to combat the symptoms rather than the true causes of the problems of poverty and unemployment, not forgetting the absence of genuine policies in favour of immigrants. Nobody can deny that the right to security is a fundamental right. We must all be aware, however, that we cannot sacrifice the other fundamental rights in order to achieve it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I welcome the fact that at long last we have resolved this issue of the European Company Statute. It is logical that if we have a single market there should be a single system of company registration, which ought to make registration simpler and reduce red tape. In the defence industries in the last few years we have had considerable cross-border cooperation and consolidation but we have not helped those companies because we have not provided them with a single company structure. Hopefully this will now do that. We also have to bear in mind that there are other issues that have to be addressed, such as the manner in which companies are taxed and the way that is approached. And if we are really to encourage transnational consolidation, we have to look at the question of how pension funds are dealt with so that people are able to take their pensions with them when working within a single company structure.

Political group: PSE
The aim of this directive is to introduce common safety targets (CSTs) and common safety methods (CSMs). According to the Council, these should ensure that a high level of safety is maintained and can be improved, when reasonably practicable and taking into account the competitiveness of the rail transport mode. This requirement for competitiveness, in conjunction with the requirement for the internal market to function correctly, underpins the whole content of this Directive. We voted against a good number of the amendments, therefore, since the objective of safer railways will not be achieved via the European Parliament’s proposals, since the latter only stipulate minimum standards at European level, preventing Member States from drawing up different national standards without the agreement of the others. Furthermore, the new rules must not jeopardise the free circulation of trains. Yet again, the European Parliament has adopted an uncompromising stance, which we oppose.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to make two points, one of a moral nature and one of a legal nature, in this debate on a very sensitive issue, and link the two questions together. Embryos are human beings in their own right: this is now a certainty, and it is a certainty that we want to stress with all our might. The Nice Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises the dignity of these rights – physical and psychological integrity – and there is therefore a moral obligation to protect embryos as human beings, irrespective of how they have been created. It therefore follows that experimentation is only justified when carried out in the interests of the individual or embryos in question, and there are no justifications or extenuating circumstances, which could serve to balance out the interests of the individual, the fundamental rights of the individual, and the interests of society. The issue goes beyond this kind of balancing out process because the protection of inalienable and fundamental rights certainly takes precedence. Thus, destructive experimentation is out of the question and, consequently, public funding is out of the question for experimentation which only endorses the line that embryos are a set of cells with no intrinsic value, with no bioethical value as human life. Stem cells, on the other hand, can be removed, as we have heard, from the umbilical chord or from spontaneously aborted foetuses of adult cells for use in the treatment of serious illnesses. Thus, moral responsibility dictates that we opt for this kind of investigation, these types of treatment. There are, however, more than just moral arguments; these moral arguments give rise to legal arguments, which the committee of which I have the honour of being chairman has pointed out and brought to Parliament’s attention. The Union respects national identity, and so I am pleased to hear the rapporteur say that we are not going to diminish Member States’ legislation or cultural diversity. Community law takes precedence over internal law and, therefore, over the basic law of the Member States. Community law, despite the fact that it takes precedence in other sectors, cannot exist in all areas of general law because there is a limit, as the Constitutional Courts – of Italy, Germany and many other countries – have said repeatedly, for fundamental rights must be respected and take precedence. Therefore, there is clearly no question of blanket Community funding – and we focused on this point in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I am speaking in this Chamber today in support of this line.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the decision of the Council of Cologne to proceed with the drawing-up of a Charter of Fundamental Rights will involve our Parliament in a long and complex process. We will have to discuss the nature of the Charter, its contents, the relationship between the Charter of Rights and the process of creating a Constitution for the Union. These issues will form the basis of a report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in co-operation with other committees, to be prepared over the coming months and which will be submitted to you during a plenary part-session. At the moment, however, we must urgently take a position on the procedure to follow in order to draw up this Charter. This is the limited but important aim of the resolution put forward by Mr Watson and myself. Before the Council decides on the nature of the body responsible for drawing up the draft Charter, Parliament must state today that we cannot accept fewer representatives of the European Parliament than representatives of the Heads of State and Government. Parliament should also state that we are pressing for in-depth talks before deciding if the essential contribution of the national parliaments should be ensured through the participation of a certain number of their representatives at the appointed body or through other, more efficient channels. And now a personal view on the fight against crime and the challenge posed by immigration. The time I spent as Italian Minister for Home Affairs leads me to say that it is essential to speed up the move towards common rules and policies, which is just the opposite of the adoption of strictly national policies. As for immigration and asylum, the best basis is the document resulting from the Austrian Presidency in autumn 1998.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I did not accuse the Commissioner of acting like a policeman giving corrupt evidence, I said that his lips were moving faster than those of a policeman giving corrupt evidence. However, I accept that my remark might have appeared insulting and I would therefore like to withdraw it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I thank the President-in-Office of the Council, although I should like express my disappointment that we are unable to ensure that the quite important and strict criteria of this code of conduct are respected. Amongst these criteria I would highlight the idea of banning the sale of arms to countries or regions that are involved in conflict. This matter is so serious that now, in the United Kingdom, MPs have obtained the right to vet arms sales from their country to anywhere the world. This move has created quite a stir in that country, even though the decision is not retroactive and British MPs cannot take action on this matter of arms sales to the Western Sahara. I would nevertheless put my question once again: do you not think that there may be ‘sanction’-type measures that the European Union could take when this code of conduct is breached? Furthermore, what concerns me the most is that this affair appears to demonstrate Morocco’s desire to rearm itself. Deplorably, it also demonstrates the support that the country is receiving within Europe. This can only heighten the already tense atmosphere in the region. Although the situation in this 25-year-old conflict is currently deadlocked, largely as a result of Morocco blocking the validation of the electoral lists established by MINURSO (United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara), there is a risk of armed hostilities flaring up overnight. Can I ask the President-in-Office of the Council whether the Swedish Presidency plans to issue a statement on the matter before the end of June? I am thinking back to the German Presidency, which made a specific statement on Western Sahara. Given this background, why does the European Union not officially recognise the Polisario Front as a negotiating partner in this conflict, something that the United Nations did 25 years ago?

Political group: GUE-NGL
To put this debate into perspective, let us remember that the current MAGP, the fourth generation, falls far short of the scientific advice provided by the Lassen committee. They recommended deep cuts in the EU's fleets to allow stocks to recover. The Council could not accept that so the final regulation calls for relatively modest cuts. Thus, the combined EU fleet is only supposed to reduce by 2.3% in terms of tonnage and 3% in power during the five years of the programme. As the Commission's report shows, by the beginning of 1998, after only one year of the programme, the aggregate EU fleets were already far below these targets. Rather than showing how good the Member States have been, what this actually shows is that the required reductions were very modest indeed and far less than was necessary. Nonetheless, and this is the point of real contention, many Member States have not abided by the regulation and many of the fleets are too large. What does one do with these Member States who place themselves above Community law and ignore their obligations? The Commission has proposed several things: it can withhold structural funds, but that is only a valid tool if the Member States actually utilise the funds. It can take Member States to court but that is time-consuming, expensive and difficult. In its proposal for the recent renewal of the FIFG, the Commission suggested that non-complying Member States should be denied access to permits to fish under third­country fishing agreements. Predictably, the Council refused. Some means must be found that will be effective to persuade or force Member States to respect their legal obligations. Mr Cunha asked the Commission to consider the possibility of quota sanctions if the MAGP objectives were not respected. Some consider this to be in breach of the principle of relative stability, but let us remember that relative stability is only one principle in the common fisheries policy. The basic regulation also says that Community management systems must enable a balance to be created on a permanent basis between resources and exploitation. In other words, if the stocks all crash, relative stability of a zero quota is not worth an awful lot. We think that the idea at least deserves serious consideration. There is already a precedent in Regulation 847/96 on the multiannual TACs. Under that regulation, if a Member State exceeds its quota in certain fisheries, its quota the following year is reduced, not just for the amount of over-fishing, but by an additional amount which increases, the greater the amount of over-fishing that has taken place. This is clearly a penalty but it was not viewed as being in breach of relative stability. Perhaps Mr Cunha's suggestion could have been a little more carefully worded to make it clear that any reduction would not be permanent but of a limited duration, and that is why we will support the amendment by the on this point to include 'temporary'. I am sure everyone will agree that some way must be found to ensure that Member States follow the law.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the latest attacks and actions clearly demonstrate that, at the beginning of this academic year, the spiral of violence is unfortunately not coming to an end. This violence has cost the lives of more than 150 Palestinian children and adolescents and dozens of Israeli children. Following the statements we have heard this morning from the Presidency-in-Office of the Council and from the Commission, it is clear that the European Union is not remaining, must not remain, impassive in the face of this situation and that the objective of sitting down at the negotiating table – although many of us are longing for another Madrid Conference – seems practically utopian compared to the objective of an immediate halt to the violence. I do not know if the next meeting between Mr Peres and Mr Arafat will lead to that halt to the violence – time will tell – but what does seem clear is that, in order for violence to end, I believe two conditions are essential. Firstly, the will of the two sides. It is clear that this ‘dialogue’ of suicide bombings and bombings by F15s and F16s must end. The moderates must speak up, as Mr Patten rightly said. I believe that this is the time for the moderates and, in this regard, the European Union must support all the options. Secondly, the international community must act: the United States, Russia – where the Israeli Prime Minister is today – and the European Union, which must hold all the cards so that it can play its rightful role on the basis of two undeniable premises. One was mentioned by the Presidency-in-Office of the Council: international law is being permanently violated and it must be reestablished. And, secondly, the European Union must have a single commitment and that commitment is the cause of peace. But two things must be taken into account: that peace must be the fruit of justice, Madam President, and that moderation becomes a vice when it rejects a commitment to a just cause such as the cause of peace.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and thus against this Commission proposal, because the latter far exceeds the targets set for the Commission in July 2000 by the Agricultural Council. Rather than presenting a simple and straightforward regulatory framework for the supervision of the EU alcohol market and of trade patterns, the actual Commission proposal provides for the creation of a new Common Organisation of the Market. This, among other things, includes the provision that, after its entry into force, tried and tested national regulatory arrangements on objectives of importance to agricultural and social policy, such as care for the cultural landscape and the maintenance of meadows of indigenous dehiscent fruit, but not supporting small agricultural distilleries, would have to be repealed on the grounds of incompatibility with the competition rules of the Treaty establishing the European Community, even though they have, to date, been declared by the ECJ to be compatible with the Treaty establishing the European Community and with current Internal Market rules. The creation of a new COM is also to be rejected at a time when there is general discussion about reforming the common agricultural policy away from market regulation and in the direction of a multifunctional approach for the future, and Agenda 2000 is about to be reviewed. I therefore call on the Commission to withdraw its proposal for the creation of a COM in agricultural alcohol and submit a new proposal closely adhering to the Council mandate of July 2000.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to offer a few explanations. In a debate, there is always the danger that we will repeat much of what has already been said. However, I would like to concentrate on two points. Firstly, I would like to make it very clear that the Union is the main contributor to aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo. I would like to point out to Mrs Albright that what we have read recently in the press is true, and that figures do not lie. Let us make this clear, however much some people may not wish to believe it. The Union has decided to assist with a further EUR 35 million in additional macrofinancial aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo, on the basis of an IMF report which estimates that a further EUR 115 million is needed for that reconstruction. I would like to say to Mrs Pack that I am in complete agreement with her when she says that the Commission should insist that other contributors fulfil their commitments. I would also like to express my concern – which is very considerable – at the statement by some Ministers at the last Ecofin that says that it should be a priority of the Portuguese Presidency not to alter, in any circumstances, the financial perspectives agreed in Berlin. This calls into question the agreement which Parliament reached, with great difficulty, with the Council in December, according to which, when the Commission presents a multiannual programme for reconstruction, the financial perspectives would be reviewed where necessary. I would like to appeal to those Ministers not to cast doubt upon that agreement which was really very difficult to reach. I would like to ask the Commission – and I am glad that Commissioner Solbes is here with us this evening – to present us in time with this multiannual finance programme, with the corresponding report, requested by Parliament, so that it may be taken into account when the preliminary draft of the next budget is drawn up, as we have been promised. Lastly, I would like to insist that, although we have agreed to EUR 35 million now, we know that this is a stopgap solution and that it is not enough, and we should therefore reach an agreement as soon as possible on the multiannual reconstruction programme for Kosovo, which is so badly needed.

Political group: PSE