GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we had said that a failure would be preferable to a disappointing conclusion. In practice, we did not fail completely, but neither did we reach a conclusion. What came out of the Summit were contradictions and deferrals. The Charter of Fundamental 0Rights was proclaimed but has not been included in the Treaties and it will therefore not become legally binding immediately. The need for a European Constitution is greater than ever. The principle of European military defence was accepted but, for now, its function has not been clearly defined. That can only be guaranteed by making it autonomous from the United States and moving on from NATO, which is now completely outdated. The need for a social agenda covering employment, health, education, the environment and rights was mentioned, but nothing concrete was specified, not even the barriers to be overcome or how to overcome them to guarantee justice and freedom. Finally, enlargement to the east and to the south was planned and promised. That is all well and good, but the institutional rules to make it operative have not been decided upon with certainty. Individual interests and privileges prevail. We are even further from achieving the Europe we want after Nice than we were before. The Council must start to take notice of the European Parliament, leaders must start to take notice of the national parliaments and the national parliaments must start to take notice of the views of their citizens.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, almost every day we read articles in the papers about refugees stranded on the coasts of Europe. Just last Sunday, 447 Kurdish refugees landed in Greece. In February the “East Sea” freighter ran aground in St. Rafael in France with almost 1 000 Kurdish refugees, including over 300 children, on board. Their Odyssey to Europe had lasted ten days under inhumane conditions. Three women gave birth to children in these conditions. The refugees sell all their worldly possessions in order to buy a passage to Europe. That refugees are putting their lives at even greater risk is the consequence of the EU's segregation policy. It is intolerable. Europe’s borders must be open to people in need, fleeing their homeland. Why does anyone leave their homeland? Where are the refugees who willingly leave their homeland? No one leaves their homeland willingly unless they are being persecuted and fear torture and maltreatment. I think we should fight the reasons why they flee. We need an active human rights policy, we need to rethink arms exports and we need to give poor countries and regions financial aid, so that their people do not need to flee. I call on the Commission, the Council and the governments of the European Union to apply this policy and put it into practice. Europe does not just need an economic face, it also needs a human face.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I agree with the views expressed by my colleague Jonas Sjöstedt. However, I should like to speak in support of Mrs Korhola’s report, which was adopted unanimously by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. In particular, I shall speak from the point of view of the Committee on Petitions, and concerning the citizens’ role in the observance of Community law. I sit on the Committee on Petitions, and I have to say that 40% of the petitions originate from citizens and non-governmental organisations ensuring compliance with Community environmental law. They would be unable to operate if they did not receive the necessary information within the set time periods. In our experience, the difficulties many petitioners encounter with regard to these petitions are twofold. Not only do they experience difficulty in understanding Community law – which is often complex and difficult to grasp – but they also have difficulty in obtaining from local, regional and national administrations sufficient information to enable them to submit their petitions to the Committee on Petitions in the approved manner. The same applies to complaints to the European Commission, as the Commissioner is well aware. It is therefore essential that this directive be adopted and transposed into the Member States’ own law as quickly as possible. One of the difficulties experienced by the earlier Directive 90/313/CEE was precisely the delay in transposing it into the Member States’ own legal systems and the unsatisfactory manner in which it was implemented during all those years. This latest revision of the directive is certainly intended to bring us into line with the Aarhus Convention, whilst also taking account of the study of the outcome of the unsatisfactory implementation of Directive 90/313/CEE.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the aim of developing a coordinated strategy for modernising social protection in the European Union is certainly an admirable one. Just as the launching of a European convergence strategy on employment and labour market policies at the Luxembourg Summit was commendable. The labour market and social protection are, in fact, two sides of the same coin, that require harmonised policies and rules. If the labour market functions by means of certain levels of employment, flexibility and salary discipline, then it is impossible for the welfare state and social protection not to function, and vice versa. Until recently, the European countries fixed, it could be said in an autarkic way, the rules governing the functioning and financing of the two markets. Budgetary and exchange rate policies were responsible for maintaining internal and external stability. With the Maastricht Treaty and the single currency, budgetary discipline became tighter and recourse to devaluation ceased as a means of endeavouring to restore marginal competitiveness. The structural and economic differences of the various countries cannot, therefore, be rebalanced through budget deficits and trade. That being the case, in the absence of complete labour mobility inside the Union, and without a redistributive fiscal policy at federal level, it is left to the labour markets and welfare systems to provide what degree of flexibility there is to remedy both structural and economic disequilibria, the so-called exogenous asymmetric shocks. And therein lies the paradox. Political and monetary convergence in Europe unavoidably entails convergence of the respective rules of the game in the labour market and welfare systems. But, at the same time, the single currency and the absence of labour mobility, as well as of a redistributive fiscal policy, force us into a situation of non-convergence in terms of salaries and welfare, in order to compensate for the differences in marginal productivity at national and regional levels. Hypocrisy and fine-sounding words such as convergence, benchmarking, modernisation and concerted action are not going to extricate us from those contradictions. Either the European Union becomes a genuine federal state with a genuine redistribution of resources, genuine free movement of workers and therefore – but only at that point – common labour and welfare regimes, or it would be better not to deceive and be deceived by hopeless paths to convergence which sound impressive but which, in reality, only cause harm, above all to the most vulnerable. That is something we would do well to recognise.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against the Maat report and the majority of the amendments because I am against any excessive regulation that only spurs on the bureaucrats. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Political group: PSE
On behalf of us all, Mrs Laguiller expressed opposition in her speech to the business closures and redundancies planned by Arcelor. The only way to prevent finance groups from acting is to prohibit mass redundancies and guarantee workers’ salaries by taking funds from profits. The compromise text, which is limited to a few protectionist measures and additional regulations which employers will not observe in any case, does not propose any practical measures for the protection of workers. It is therefore out of the question for us to sanction this text. The only reason we did not vote against it is because it proposes a few additional prerogatives for trade unions and we did not wish to oppose these. Redundancies, however, are not more justified simply because the trade unions have been consulted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, today we are talking as Europeans; we do not bring to this House opinions on the internal politics of our countries. In the next six months Europe must start moving faster; the constitutional treaty for a Europe of 25 should make the world realise whether our continent will continue to be a driving force for economic and social progress and, after the serious Iraqi crisis, whether it will equip itself with effective means to take a leading role in matters of security and freedom in partnership with the United States, in a new multilateral cooperation. As a European, therefore, I hope for a successful Italian Presidency working in close collaboration with the Commission under Romano Prodi and with our Parliament. Today, Mr President-in-Office, you have been cautious and made an effort to present your programme along lines of collaboration with the other countries and not in discontinuity with Italy’s traditional policy for Europe. We need to be bolder, however, if we do not want our compromises to slip away, especially as regards control of the economy, foreign policy and the necessary new defence policy, so as to minimise the risk of paralysis due to the need for unanimity. Over these six months we expect a radical change that can remove the reasons for all the criticism, scepticism and concern that have surrounded these first few days of the period with you at the helm. Indeed, it is not the internal politics of one country but all Europe that is calling for an end to conflicts of interest and media concentrations. It is the liberal fundamentals of the separation of powers and the balance among the powers as reflected in the European Treaties which we have freely signed and by which we are bound. The spirit of Rome of the 1957 Treaty was based on a daring vision of the future, and it constructed fifty years of democracy, prosperity and peace. If we are guided by that vision, even from alternative political positions, we shall harvest common fruits for the good of Europe and its future. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, this report is very straightforward: at present, directives on summer time only last for five years, and then have to come back to Parliament to be renewed. What this report is suggesting is that those arrangements be made permanent, so that we have summer time in place in perpetuity, as it were, rather than its having to be ratified by this Parliament every five years. There is no good reason not to accept that in principle. Indeed, there are many very strong arguments in favour of having summer time. These arguments include less energy consumption; transport; hotels and restaurants, which have found planning easier; leisure activities; increasing the quality of life; and helping to prevent disruption of people's bio-rhythms. Most Member States accept and want summer time, and thus this report is not at all controversial. The advantage of making summer time a permanent arrangement would be to make planning easier. Particular sectors involved in this, for example, IT and computers, transport, communications, air and rail, have said to us and to the Commission that they would find it very helpful to know that there will be summer time every year, that it will be permanent, so they can make forward-planning arrangements. There is also a good argument in terms of the single market, where again similar planning considerations apply. In terms of the substance of the report, what is being suggested is that the current arrangements, with summer time starting on the last Sunday in March and ending on the last Sunday in October, remain in place and are made permanent arrangements. However, amendments have been put forward calling for a review and for a report to be produced at the end of five years. As the rapporteur, I would recommend that these amendments be supported as they make a lot of sense. The main argument in favour of these amendments and of a report at the end of five years actually concerns enlargement of the European Union, which, following the Nice Summit, is particularly apposite and appropriate. The point is that if new Member States join us they may not have existing arrangements which conform with what we are proposing, and they may well need time to come into line with our arrangements and to bring about the sort of harmonisation we are proposing. In view of the changes that we will very likely be undergoing, it would not be a very good idea to introduce permanent arrangements now, with no opportunity for a review. That is the strongest argument in favour of having a review and therefore supporting the amendments to that effect. There are other issues we would still like to look at, issues like energy consumption and health and safety, as they relate to summer time; but the strongest argument is undoubtedly that we want to allow new Member States the opportunity to come into line with the arrangements. So, I would ask Parliament, when the vote takes place, to support all these amendments so that we can have the best possible arrangements for the existing Member States and for future Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a debate in which so many things have already been said I need not repeat myself, but I cannot fail to respond to two comments by Mr Gollnisch who, unfortunately, as usual, has now left the Chamber. Mr Gollnisch is a fascist delegate in this House who takes advantage of every opportunity, not least in this Chamber, to slander others. It is the left-wingers or the gays who are responsible for child pornography. He beautifully tars everyone with the same brush. The left-wing French Government is responsible for the abolition of the criminal register of sex offenders and is therefore responsible, in the logic of this arch-fascist, for child pornography. This is the type of poison which he spouts here. Then he slips away because the sole reason why this pack of hounds sits in this Parliament is to permanently set upon others and then slink back into its holes to evade the responsibility of debate. At any rate, these fine people do not participate in parliamentary work and it is time that this was made known because they are only ever speaking for the benefit of the visitors. Then it all sounds so wonderful. The reality is that these fine people do not partake in 99% of the work. They spout their poison and then push off. (Applause) I share the opinion of Mr Hager that we should also place an obligation on providers. I think this is a worthy point which Mr Kirkhope should take into consideration in his report. I also expressly support the view that we should not move away from criminal-law liability. It cannot be right to release from criminal-law liability one of the primary areas where human dignity is violated, particularly taking into account the special need to protect minors. I believe this must be made clear, even if it has sometimes been disputed by the groups on the left. On this point, Mr Hager is correct. One final comment: the permanent availability of sexual material in the exclusively anonymous private sphere, which is conditioned by the structure of the Internet, and the attendant fact that sexual abuse is removed from public and, hence, social controls, is one of the central challenges with which we are faced as a result of this new aspect of human lifestyle. We cannot resolve it simply through Interpol and more stringent criminal law. The Internet, as evidenced by child pornography, presents totally new challenges to our subjective, individual sense of responsibility. We should discuss this in at least as much detail as the tightening of criminal law.

Political group: PSE
If I am taking the floor, it is because there are two serious errors in the Danish translation of point 8 concerning Austria. The words of the English text, which I understand to be the basic text, are: 'asked the Council presidency'. In the Danish text, the words 'Council presidency' have been translated by the word 'Rådet', and there is no mention of the presidency. This is a serious political and translation error. But, in addition, there is another error, namely that the following words have been included in the English text: 'with all the parties in the EU concerned', and those words are quite simply not included in the Danish text. I would urge that a correct Danish translation of the text be obtained, for I find it a very serious matter that, in point 8 concerning Austria, these two mistakes have been made which, from a political point of view, completely alter the sense.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, freedom of expression and freedom of choice are a precious right for liberals, but not at any price. The receipt of e-mail is considerably less free of strings for the receiver than the receipt of paper leaflets and brochures. The costs may total EUR 10 billion annually for receivers, not to mention the cost in time. We therefore need, just as with paper leaflets, “No thank you” stickers. Personally, I would gladly opt for self-regulation by industry, but in practice it is clear that “opt-out” is not sustainable. For this reason, the Liberal group will support the Commission’s proposal for “opt-in”. Meanwhile there is a bill before the US congress for an “opt-in” that paves the way for sound agreements worldwide, which is necessary in an age of unlimited communication. Unwanted post will not be limited to the Internet. The mobile telephone sector will play an increasing role in the period ahead, so that companies and consumers will be saddled with high costs, while the infrastructure becomes very vulnerable. My second remark concerns the storage of traffic data. I refer to the ECHELON debate of this morning. In my view it is an invasion of privacy if traffic data are stored for longer than necessary. As a result consumers will never gain the necessary trust in e-commerce. In conclusion, the rules within the Union should be harmonised. After all, our telecom companies work in a pan-European way and therefore need uniform rules so that legal uncertainty is ruled out. For this reason, subsidiarity in this field is not an option.

Political group: ELDR
At the beginning of this year a macroeconomic dialogue became absolutely essential and no doubt the first meeting of the partners to that macroeconomic dialogue next week will be an historic step. Sadly we here in Parliament will be witnessing it from the sidelines. Despite an absolutely resounding rejection just last June in the European Parliament elections of the remoteness and secrecy of our institutions collectively, that first step next week will be adding to the democratic deficit in that Parliament will be excluded and there seems to be no good reason for this. The partners to the dialogue are of two types. First there are those like the social partners or the central bank who have a direct influence on facets of the equation such as wage formation or the level of interest rates and then secondly, in a class of their own, are the European Commission and the Commission advisers on the direction, for example, of the policy mix. They do not directly affect any of the facets of the equation, they have not got that decision-making power. They are there to advise and influence. In this respect this institution is one of the Commission’s main interlocutors. We might disagree with the advice and the direction they will suggest but we will not have the right to be there at the macroeconomic dialogue to say so. I am told that these sorts of things are technical issues and that we in Parliament should remain above them, but to me the issues that will be discussed in the macroeconomic dialogue that have been touched upon here are not technical, they are highly political and we, as the democratically elected institution, should have a part to play in that macroeconomic dialogue. That leaves the excuse of what some call the need for confidentiality, trust or even secrecy. Some have used the word secrecy. That is a retrograde step. We have found all sorts of ways in the budgetary procedure to find a working arrangement for this institution together with the Commission to maintain confidentiality and that could be done in relation to this dialogue. On the content, I hope the macroeconomic dialogue will call for and take note of evidence on the success of the active labour market measures we have been increasingly pursuing since Luxembourg. Has that resulted in an increase in the effective supply of labour or do we need to hang on to the increasing unsustainable view that structural unemployment represents the bulk of unemployment? Can we begin to abandon concepts like that, can we perhaps begin to take a more realistic view in the setting of interest rates, a view which would accept that conditions have changed and that we can now begin to hold back on interest rate increases as unemployment falls so as not to choke off a fragile growth? These are the sorts of points I would love to be at the macroeconomic dialogue next week to make, but sadly neither I nor any other Member of this institution will be allowed to be present at that meeting next week. That is a real retrograde step and an absolute shame.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this is not really a point of order, but new events are constantly taking place, and I was obliged to take a decision on Friday because there was nobody who could answer my questions. On Friday morning, the Armenian Ambassador to the European Union, Mr Chitechian, invited me to attend the funerals last week of those murdered in the Armenian Parliament. Having checked to see whether I was able to attend, I then took the decision to attend these funerals and I tried to inform the Presidency and the Secretariat of my decision. Unfortunately, it was between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on Friday afternoon and there was no-one I could speak to. So, I faxed you a letter to tell you that I would be attending in a personal capacity, but would nevertheless represent the European Parliament to some extent at these funerals. I was therefore present at the funerals and at the official ceremonies held in the memory of those murdered in Armenia. I wanted to inform you of this, Madam President.

Political group: Verts-ALE