GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should first of all like to thank the rapporteur for her outstanding cooperation and the excellent way in which she has worded her report. I should like to home in on a few points. Firstly, the method of registration of a ‘.EU’ domain. The principle underlying the registration policy is that anyone who wants to register a ‘.EU’ domain also has the related trademark rights. Two interests need to be weighed up in this connection. On the one hand, countering abuse and, on the other, making registration for SMEs and for citizens as simple as possible. Two models are possible in this connection. The first model prescribes extremely strict requirements to be applied in advance of someone obtaining such a ‘.EU’ name. This will then lead to a shortage of names because the thresholds are too high. The second model prescribes subsequent intervention in the unlikely event of improper use or speculation. That is why I should like to refer to Amendment No 34, which spells this out clearly. We prefer the second model because it is much more SME-friendly, results in many more domain names and – in my opinion – in many more domain registrations. That is the right way forward in my view. My second point concerns clarity on behalf of citizens and businesses. ‘.EU’ offers EU citizens clarity, for it stipulates that registration is only possible for people or businesses lawfully based within the EU. That is what Amendment No 24 is about. That translates into more legal certainty, more confidence and an increase in e-commerce within the European Union. I believe that that is what it is all about. Finally, my third point. All of this fits in with the EU policy which we aim to pursue. We want to assume a favourable position worldwide in the Information Society. In my opinion, the ‘.EU’ Internet Domain sets the right tone for this, for which I am extremely grateful.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is about the resolution on Chechnya. I just wanted to tell you that point 4 of the German version refers to Chechen militia, whereas the original English text refers to fighters. Fighters are Kämpfer. Please could you correct this accordingly in all the translations because there is a big difference between fighters and militia. Could you therefore please check point 4 of the translations.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have to say that there is much in the Brok report that we can support, in particular the importance attached to enlargement of the European Union. However we have concerns in particular about the nature of common European security and defence policy. I say this in spite of the mass of apparent reassurances on this subject that have miraculously been generated in the past few days. If the proposed European capabilities were indeed designed to reinforce NATO or the options for the alliance, we would have few difficulties. But this is not the case. The Union is bent on establishing an autonomous capability in pursuit of European political integration. Mr Richard says he does not want to compete with NATO but he does want to compete with America in the security policy arena. Among other ambitions, Mr Brok proposes that the European Union should set its military operational sights on a zone of instability in Asia, from Afghanistan to the China sea. He mentioned Kashmir – I find this alarming. The Lalumière report wants EU military operations to be funded from the Community budget and even those not participating would be expected to pay up as well. There is a proposal to turn to Russia for long-range air transport and yesterday the Russians suggested common intelligence-gathering with the European Union. There are some here who would prefer Russia rather than America as a strategic partner. Mrs Lalumière and Mr Brok want EU defence policy to be under the control of a Vice-President of the Commission, who would assume the CFSP responsibilities of the Secretary-General of the Council. Under this scheme the Commission would run defence policy. This is all barmy stuff. The Commission should concentrate on its civil external assistance programmes, military matters should be left to the nations on an intergovernmental basis. Let NATO first decide how it would deal with a crisis and then, if required, Europeans, having developed greater capability, could indeed assume responsibility for a particular task, as agreed in NATO four years ago. Let us not pretend that the present proposals have this in mind.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the storms that took place at the turn of the millennium should galvanise us into thinking about certain problems. It has become clear that mankind continues to be unable to avoid natural disasters. There have always been natural disasters and there always will be. Of course, there is a need for solidarity here. There is certainly a need for European civil protection, and the EU budget must also provide for a budget line covering natural disasters. But, most importantly, it is only ever man that makes the mistakes as far as the nature-mankind relationship is concerned – despite the fact that the same mistakes have often been made down through the centuries – and never nature, for nature cannot make mistakes. The extent of the damage caused on this occasion was determined by the population density, the type of infrastructure, and, of course, the many monocultures, if we are talking forests. Of course, I am in favour of providing assistance where we can. But when it comes to aid, we ought to bear in mind that perhaps in future, more emphasis should be placed on laying electricity and telephone cabling underground. We must take account of smaller cycles and plant stable mixed woodland when undertaking reforestation, rather than monocultures. The most important subject for discussion in this context is the climate. To this day, we in Europe remain in the privileged position of having the Gulf Stream, and the Gulf Stream still does its stuff. America and south-east Asia are having a much worse time of it as far as climate and storms go. We are fortunate in having the Gulf Stream. But in common with others, we too are having to endure the greenhouse effect. This is partly the work of human hand, as difficult as it is to demonstrate climate change using calculations. We must take more account of the guidelines produced at the Kyoto environmental conference. We must reduce CO2 emissions, employ renewable energies, and generally make enquiries, in this connection, as to how the forests of Europe are faring.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Contrary to a majority of MEPs, I cannot regret the failure of Mr Berlusconi and the Council regarding the IGC and the draft European Constitution. Although the reasons why they failed are not the same as the reasons why I personally would have rejected the draft presented by Mr Giscard d'Estaing, I believe that the current crisis can only be beneficial. I hope that it will make people aware that Europe needs a new draft and new social inspiration from the citizens for a different Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, yesterday we held a debate on Mrs van den Burg's report on temporary work. This debate lasted from 10 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. and 28 speakers took part in it. When I asked this morning whether there was a video recording of it I was told that there was not because proceedings were only filmed up to 8 p.m. Mr President, we say that we want to treat all debates alike and yet those whose reports are debated after 8 p.m. are always at a disadvantage. Transparency is not guaranteed. We are there; the interpreters are there; only the audiovisual service cannot be there because its resources have been drastically cut. I consider this to be an unacceptable situation. (Loud applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased to note that, after all these months during which these questions have been asked, during which we have been told countless times of the existence of information that it was impossible to verify, the Commissioner is not telling us, as he did very recently, that Iran appears in general to have complied with the provisions of the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am also pleased that the Commissioner is not giving us the same answer he gave me less than a month ago, in which he said that he recognises Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as if anyone had ever questioned this right. The Commission has changed its line, but I fear this has come too late. The question that I raised, therefore, stands: do you not think, Commissioner, that it would be useful to listen to those whom you did not previously consider to be credible?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, multilingualism is guaranteed, for better or for worse, in Europe’s legal system, by the founding treaties. In the same way that it applies to every citizen of the EU, it also protects the Members of this House in the way in which they carry out their functions. It follows that the Rules of Procedure of this House cannot alone be exempt from an obligation that is established in the Treaty. The Bureau must, therefore, in line with the provisions laid down by common agreement, comply strictly with the obligations that also bind it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to focus on one particular issue which I feel has not been fully explored. Dioxin, and in this case its source chemical PCB, is one of the number of non-biodegradable bio-accumulative chemicals that we know are contaminating the food chain around the world. There are rules and regulations already in existence for the correct and proper disposal of these substances. Indeed, I was Parliament's rapporteur on the Council and Commission proposal for the elimination of PCBs and PCDs we dealt with in the last Parliament. We have to ask if these existing European rules and regulations are being properly followed. Are the responsible authorities given the duty to dispose of these chemicals in a correct and safe way, following the rules, or are they deliberately avoiding them and disposing of these chemicals in the wrong way? This incident appears to indicate that is the case. Unlike bacterial or some other form of organic or biological contamination of the food chain, we have here a finite quantity of substance that could easily be eliminated. Would the Commission please look into why the regulations on the proper disposal of PCBs and PCDs are not being correctly followed? Will they please investigate where the substances came from that caused this incident?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are indeed dumbfounded by the replies that the President-in-Office has given us. Is he mindful of the fact that of the 250,000 Serbs who were in Kosovo when the bombing stopped, only a few thousand now remain. In Pristina, there used to be 27,000 Serbs but now there are only 1,500-2,000. He himself recognises the fact that everybody is fleeing Kosovo, apart from the odd few and the Albanian-speaking population. Can he tell us therefore why this proud International Force, which I call the Occupying Force, has left? Can he tell us therefore why, whilst Mr Solana himself is recording secret documentaries on NATO which prove that the KLA is involved in drug trafficking, prostitution and crime, the International Force is continuing to support the KLA, and why the International Community is continuing to arm and not disarm them as was agreed? This hypocrisy must come to an end once and for all, Mr President-in-Office. We must sober up and acknowledge the fact that the real goal was for there to be true ethnic cleansing in Kosovo just so that you could manipulate it to suit your own needs. Furthermore, that is why you are refusing to pay for the reconstruction of what you destroyed in the rest of Yugoslavia.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order. I welcome the fact that there is now going to be a smoking rather than a non-smoking zone. I hope now that all Members and all members of staff observe the no-smoking areas across the whole of the European Parliament building. I am still having problems being able to get into the part-session and being able to get in and out of committee meetings, both here and in Brussels. So I plead with everybody, now there is a smoking area, to use it and not the no-smoking areas, including the corridors and going up to the lift.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I speak from experience acquired during many visits to El Ejido over the years. I was therefore aware how the situation was developing. Here in the European Parliament, as in many other institutions, we have watched this situation with concern and were beside ourselves when we heard what had happened. This is because we felt the problem to be ours, as it was. In El Ejido there is a serious social problem, problems of integration and employment and also a grave problem of public safety which acted as the detonator. These events have also acted as a wake-up call to our consciences. Here in this House, in Spain and in many other countries, we have all fixed on El Ejido. Yet what we do and say here and the concern we express will really serve no purpose unless this leads to the adoption of a much more determined attitude to finding out what is really happening, not only in El Ejido, but in many other places where this type of problem may be occurring at any given moment. We all agree in our condemnation of intolerance and we also agree that we must look forward. We will not find the guilty parties in this House or in many other places. Those responsible for what happened in El Ejido are a minority who set out to satisfy their desire for vengeance on the immigrants. We must bear in mind that vengeance is not a solution. These problems can only be solved by close cooperation between all the authorities in order to achieve social integration and respect for all working there. This therefore requires a determined fight against illegal immigration and profound respect for the rights of immigrant workers who are legally working in El Ejido and throughout Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we should like to express our opposition to any attempt to abolish or gradually reduce aid to tobacco, as proposed by the Commission, because it will wipe out tobacco production in Europe. We disagree with any proposal which is based on the premise of abandoning tobacco production and tries to gild the pill by allegedly seeking alternative forms of employment and income for producers. We all know full well that tobacco is grown in disadvantaged areas in the south, mainly barren mountainous areas, and that it is a crop traditionally grown on holdings on which nothing else will grow. It is the sole source of income and means of survival for people living in these areas, for whom there are no alternative forms of employment. It is infuriating that proposals such as this are being made at a time when smoking is on the increase and 70% of the tobacco used is imported. Consequently, any reduction in tobacco growing in the Community will wipe out thousands of small and medium-sized holdings and increase imports and merely serves the predatory interests of the huge tobacco industry and distribution monopolies, at the expense of producers and consumers alike. The only thing we should be reducing are imports, not the income of European farmers, and every suitable measure should be taken in order to do so. Any other proposal is anything from hypocritical to highly suspicious and a smoke-screen for unlawful interests. As far as the Cunha report is concerned, it contains a number of good points, but it too accepts the objective, albeit with reservations, of reducing tobacco growing in the Community, perhaps over a longer period of time. This is clearly illustrated, for example, in Amendments Nos 7 and 12, calling for tobacco growers to be encouraged to switch into other crops, which is why we shall be voting against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report and explanatory comments. I am sure we are all agreed that Croatia must be given political assistance, but political assistance also entails financial support, because political stability is always a prerequisite to social and economic stability. This can only be achieved, of course, if there is an appropriate level of investment in this sphere. There is not a moment to lose if the fall in GDP recorded for 1999 and the increase in the budgetary deficit in Croatia are to be halted and reversed. In the final analysis, the only way to achieve this is through Croatia developing self-supporting economic cycles. The contribution under discussion, which would take the form of an EIB loan in excess of EUR 250 million for the period from 2000 to 2007, may not prove to be a milestone, but it would certainly help the process on its way. The course of action proposed by the Commission and backed by the report is the inevitable outcome. However, the problems that have come to light and which are as yet unresolved, are something else altogether. It is generally the case that new political challenges demand increased financial outlay, but not – I might add – at the expense of others. Therefore, we must think in general terms – and hopefully arrive at positive political decisions – firstly, about increasing the reserves for the guarantee fund, and secondly, about the fact that it must not be left solely to the Council to determine how the residual margin is to be used, and thirdly, about establishing binding criteria for the effective deployment of the EIB loan, so as to be able, at the end of the day, to monitor whether this package is actually consistent with the necessary objectives for which it was intended.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Committee on Fisheries has been calling for the strengthening of the common fisheries policy on an international level as well. We must support our fishing industry and help it to be placed on an equal level with giants such as the United States, Russia or Japan. As draftsperson of the Committee on Fisheries, I would like to express my satisfaction with the Committee on Budgets’ support for our proposals on the international fishing organisations and agreements. Firstly, I will refer to our contribution to the international organisations. In an increasingly globalised world, the Union must increase its presence in these organisations which regulate offshore fishing, for reasons of prestige, good management of resources and, above all, the defence of the interests of our industry and our workers. My second point concerns the international agreements. This six-month period, with the French Presidency of the Council, will be decisive in terms of completing the negotiation of these agreements, including, amongst others, the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco. We are all concerned about the prolonged inactivity – seven months now – of the Community fleet which was fishing in Moroccan waters. This is by far the European Union’s most important agreement in this area and our main priority: five hundred boats, thousands of fishermen out of work and many economically paralysed areas depend on its renewal. I would like to congratulate Mrs Haug on her work, which has not been easy, and I am happy that the amounts envisaged by the Commission for the funding of the agreements to be negotiated in 2000 and 2001, the agreement with Morocco amongst others, have been respected. Meanwhile, Mrs Haug, your report is a clear sign of the European Parliament’s support for the Community’s negotiators and for the thousands of European families who are impatiently waiting for the negotiations to be concluded.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I very much welcome the establishment of courts to try the suspects of the former Communist Khmer Rouge regime. It is important so that Cambodia can move forward into the future that those responsible for heinous crimes against the Cambodian population be brought to justice. The Khmer Rouge regime was one of the worst human rights abusers of the twentieth century, being responsible for an estimated 1.72 million deaths in a short, four-year rule. Although I welcome the establishment of the courts I have a number of reservations. We have to remember that the members of the ruling Cambodian People's Party, including the prime minister, Hun Sen, were once activists of the Khmer Rouge, serving under the dictator Pol Pot. Hun Sen has already decided who can and cannot be taken before a tribunal, thus challenging the powers of any court. There have been genuine fears that several senior members of the regime might escape justice, in particular the former Khmer Rouge foreign secretary, Ieng Sary. He was given partial amnesty after he defected with about 10,000 supporters in 1996. Ieng Sary and other Khmer Rouge leaders were sentenced to death in absentia in 1997 by the People's Court, which was organised by the Vietnamese army occupying Cambodia at the time. The amnesty granted by King Sihanouk refers only to this conviction and makes no reference to future convictions and therefore it is important that he is tried. No Khmer Rouge leaders has ever been tried and only two are in detention, one being the person who ran a notorious torture centre in Phnom Penh from which only seven out of more than fourteen thousand inmates emerged alive. The tribunal has an unusual framework for participation of both international and Cambodian judges and prosecutors. Normally, in other war crime courts, there are only foreign judges and prosecutors. This becomes ever more worrying when we see that while the UN-nominated judges will be screened by the Cambodian Supreme Council of the Magistrate, a body controlled by the ruling party of Phnom Penh, the UN has no power whatsoever to screen the judges appointed by Cambodia. Finally, we also need to look at the involvement of China in all of this. Although it has always maintained that it only provided the Khmer Rouge with technical expertise in agriculture, the Cambodian documentation centre recently unearthed evidence to show that it was directly involved in the setting up of the interrogation and torture centre in Phnom Penh where thousands of Cambodians died.

Political group: Verts-ALE
On a point of order, I really must protest. This is an extremely important debate. We adjourned it for the Commissioner to come here, and now we have other meetings taking place inside the Chamber. Quite frankly, this is unacceptable. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in view of your reply, rather than asking the question I had planned to ask, I am simply going to make a suggestion: read Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty and then reply.

Political group: Verts-ALE