GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, to date two stringent Parliament resolutions have been allowed to jeopardise European citizens’ fundamental right to protection of personal data. US agencies can directly access data on the flight passenger list with no guarantee that the permission of those concerned will be asked, and with no guarantee of their right to have details corrected, or that they will have recourse to a lawyer or an independent authority. There are no guarantees on the duration and the purpose of authorising data and, despite the efforts made by the Commission, the prospects for the future are not encouraging: the data of millions of European citizens who book trips to America will, therefore, be kept for years in US databases. In what way, though, will keeping all their credit card data enhance our security? How are we going to deny other countries something tomorrow that we are today granting to the US? We called for reciprocity as regards citizens’ rights, but the Commission is instead, rather ironically, proposing reciprocity in the exchange of data between security agencies. Let us be careful. If monitoring becomes the norm instead of an exception, if a majority is under suspicion instead of an individual and if all citizens become suspects, then we are heading towards a worrying future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, where is the journey into, and with, a united Europe to lead? The debates we are having now will add something to this key issue, which is to be addressed in the decades to come. Do we in fact need a constitution for Europe? To what extent should certain important competences, which hitherto have been the preserve of individual Member States, now be the subject of Community policy? The excellent reports by Mr Duhamel and Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado expertly point the way on both issues: improved intelligibility of the Treaties, a constitutional framework, fundamental rights, delimitation of competences, constitutional state, democracy and separation of powers; no superstate in Europe, a new method of developing the Treaties. The Duhamel report contains important pointers on all these issues. The same goes for the report by Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado. Reinforced cooperation, so as to escape the stranglehold exerted by national vetos. At the same time, we must be sure to retain a European approach, even in areas of reinforced cooperation, and ensure that reinforced cooperation does not exclude countries, but brings them closer together in the long run. Both reports leave some questions open, i.e. the answers given are only of a provisional nature. Do we really want to hold direct referendums on key European issues? We venture a tentative ‘yes’. However, this issue still needs to be discussed in greater depth Do we really want to let a third of the Member States press on ahead? Do we not need at least half of them? We would prefer it if as many Member States as possible could tread the common European path in unison. Our task for the future is to make this a reality. Reinforced cooperation between a few countries cannot be in the interests of Europe as a whole. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group is delighted with the report and we would therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Hernandez-Mollar, on his work. I should also like to congratulate the Commission on its efforts in this area, and I hope that it will maintain a high level of ambition, both in terms of the ultimate framework decision on minimum standards for the rights of suspects, and in decisions that will subsequently need to be taken. I sincerely hope that we can look forward to sound proposals in the near future, also in respect of research methods, admissibility and weight of evidence. My group takes the view that European agreements on matters of this kind are vital, because the Member States decided in Tampere to recognise each other's judicial decisions and to implement them unconditionally. The most poignant example of this is the European arrest warrant, to which a number of references have been made. This means that Member States implement each other's requests for extradition almost automatically, without verifying whether the evidence has been obtained lawfully or checking whether the suspect can rely on a fair trial in accordance with the standards of the extraditing state, because this is all done on the basis of trust. Mr Hernandez-Mollar, you stated that this trust is in place, but I think that this trust, which is desirable especially in a political context, is not sufficiently in place or sufficiently substantiated. For example, looking at it from my own country's perspective, there has been a great deal of protest against a sentence passed on a Dutchman in Austria on the basis of only one witness statement and against the long-term detention of British and Dutch plane spotters in Greece. There will be similar examples like these in various other countries too. This shows how important it is that we first conclude agreements on minimum standards for the rights of the suspects before we start extraditing our own nationals in this way, without prescribing any further conditions. I would therefore urge you to reconsider our amendment. I know that many Member States would actually like to raise objections and that they are a little nervous about the European framework decision on procedural law. I find this really regrettable and also incomprehensible. I put it down to unnecessary interference from Brussels, but surely it is absurd that they themselves have already taken that step of a European arrest warrant, which is a very far-reaching measure on the road of European cooperation in the judicial sphere, and are now refusing to restore the balance between repression and civil rights, in respect of which civil rights agreements should be made at European level too. It is therefore up to us MEPs to ensure that these civil rights are not brushed under the carpet, but that the balance is restored.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I welcome what the Commissioner said about raising this matter with the Palestinian authorities, but I want to take him back to the last part of his original answer which was the dialogue between the youth of Israel and young Palestinians. Will he reinforce the Community's efforts in this field? That is where the future lies: to build understanding and tolerance between these two peoples. That starts with the young people. We spend some money on this but, when you consider the scale of the problem, it is still a relatively small amount of money. Will he look at ways of expanding that section of the Community's budget?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the proposals in the Scheele report, together with the Trakatellis report, mean that consumers do not have to use GMOs. If the amendments of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are approved, EU legislation will be the strictest in the world. Despite this, the situation is still far from ideal, because it is still possible for traditionally or organically grown plants, and animals, to be adventitiously contaminated by GMO materials. We are still waiting for effective criteria for co-existence in the field and also for the environmental liability system that the Commission promised us during the negotiations about Directive 2001/18/EC two years ago. Until such time as these criteria have begun to take adequate effect, the ban should not be lifted. We must make it clear that European consumers are entitled to decide for themselves whether they want to buy GMOs or not. For the protection of this right, we should not have to rely on the World Trade Organisation or the United States administration. This is exclusively the responsibility of Europe’s own parliamentarians, both here and in the national parliaments. If we are to move ahead, we have to support all the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I regret that the Commission has assumed a rather negative position towards a number of these amendments.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, let me add my voice to those of our fellow Members of Parliament who have already spoken in this debate to stress how intolerable the uncertainty of the fate of these 605 prisoners and missing persons is to their families, with regard to human rights of course, but also with regard to the right to human dignity. Is this problem sufficiently topical to justify the urgent procedure? In my view, it is. It is true that it is a problem which has lasted since the end of the war, for over 9 years, and the insistent demands which we, the European Parliament and the International Red Cross, have made have not so far been satisfied. At this point, I should like to endorse and emphasise what Mr Martínez Martínez has just told us. We should take the opportunity now to resume the negotiations between the European Union and Iraq with a view to possibly lifting the embargo. In my view this opportunity justifies bringing in the subject under the urgency procedure and justifies the motion for a resolution submitted for the vote of Parliament. If we do not take this opportunity, I believe that we shall be failing in our duty.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today we are discussing Mr Galeote Quecedo’s excellent report, on which there is a broad consensus. Clearly, if we are to support the Union’s international activities, we need suitable mechanisms, knowledge and skills. Equally clearly, these alone are not enough. We also need policies. In this sense, Mr Galeote Quecedo’s report remains within the limits of procedural rationalisation; it also remains within the framework of certain policies. We often ask the question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Something of the sort hangs over today’s debate. But we must be clear that there are no vacuums in life. In this sense, moaning and groaning solves nothing in politics. Having said which, the framework to which the Galeote Quecedo report belongs will always dictate the conditions both for rationalising procedures and for the prospects of common diplomacy. In this sense, it moves within the bounds of technocratic rationalisation and goes no further than policy will allow. However we, the citizens of Europe, who are striving for a better future for the people of Europe and of the world as a whole, have to realise that we need to intervene in these matters transcendently. We need to move forward, we need to be guided by the logic of a positive dynamic balance, not a static balance which goes nowhere. In this sense, there have indeed been huge vacuums in the CFSP and we have all acknowledged the fact and seen what is needed in order to put flesh on the bones of this policy, which is instrumental to the political development of Europe. In this sense, the report translates the initiative of the European Parliament into a framework, into prospects, action and rationalisation. In any event, if there is anyone here in this House – and I do not think that there is – who believes that Europe has no future, they can express it somewhat differently. But I believe that the people of Europe and the large majority of parties and factions see Europe as a Europe with prospects, a Europe of peace, a Europe of cooperation, a Europe of social cohesion, a Europe of development. And this sort of Europe cannot function if it has no prospect of a common foreign policy and defence and security policy, i.e. if it does not have the corresponding mechanisms. Under these circumstances, the tiny foundation stone of this structure which the European Parliament is laying today represents a serious starting point and I think that it has created new momentum and better prospects.

Political group: PSE
Madam Present, in the past our Parliament has looked very critically at the situation in Algeria, but our Parliament was also the first which sought contact and dialogue with the Algerian Parliament. The result of yesterday’s referendum gives us cause to rejoice, along with the people of Algeria, who are on the road to reconciliation and striving to achieve peace in their country. I would like to ask you, Madam President, to convey the congratulations of this Parliament to the President of Algeria.

Political group: PSE
My Labour colleagues and I have voted for Amendments Nos 13 and 24 to Article 20 and Amendment No 15 to Article 21 of the Marinho report. These amendments ensure that decisions on transfers of asylum seekers will have suspensive effect. Without this right, asylum seekers could be shuffled between Member States whilst the outcome of their appeal is pending.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I see GATS, with its creation of a new international market organisation for services, not only as restructuring the global labour market, but as presaging a new global and social order, capable of having a profound effect on the political, social and cultural values and regulatory systems that have prevailed so far in most nation states, and of restricting to a substantial degree the extent to which they can act. It is for that reason that I appeal to you, Commissioner Lamy, not to abandon the opt-out clause for public provision of services of general interest under any circumstances. Unless, though, majority decisions are legitimised by democratic politics, the decision-making process in the countries – and there above all – is called into question by this discussion of fundamentals. The main problem with GATS is that negotiations focus on the market conditions under which services are provided across borders, to the exclusion, though, of the social conditions under which services are provided. If the result is the same as with the WTO on trading in goods hazardous to the environment, and if child and slave labour is not a reason to bar goods from entering the market, then I can see big problems heading towards us. For as long as not even the International Labour Organisation's core labour standards are anchored in GATS, for as long as there is no fundamental clarification of the minimum conditions in labour and social security law under which migratory workers are to work on a temporary basis, I cannot imagine that a social consensus will be achieved in the EU in favour of opening up our market for services under module 4. If it is achieved, it will be only in the teeth of the greatest resistance. Democratic deficits are not a good basis on which to reshape markets.

Political group: PSE
The present report on the Commission’s recommendation for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and the Community in 2001 states that the supreme goal of European economic policy is to make the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. That is an unobjectionable aim in principle, but it is surely no mere oversight that makes the author omit the rest of this sentence as formulated at the Lisbon summit, for it went on to speak of an economic area with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. That is the very heart of the matter. A cyclical economic slowdown is rightly identified in the report, but once again the neoliberal solutions are trotted out: supply-side economic policies, liberalisation, reduction of government debt and wage restraint on the part of employees in pay negotiations. Although some important points that were not contained in the report on the European economic situation by the same author have now been incorporated, such as the need for harmonisation in certain areas of tax law, special emphasis on the importance of strengthening SMEs and consideration of environmental factors, some vital elements are still missing. Unless domestic demand is strengthened, in other words unless people’s purchasing power is increased, a sustained upturn will be impossible to achieve. That is why foremost priority must be attached to the creation of new jobs. We urgently need to redistribute work by devising every possible means of shortening employees’ working hours, to ensure that everyone who earns an income from employment is integrated on an equitable basis into national insurance and pension schemes, to show greater commitment to education and training and to alter the course of public investment policy. As long as these imperatives are not incorporated into the strategy for the development of European economic policy, we cannot give it our approval.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would simply like to propose a rational solution to the problem. I believe that we effectively have the right to respond to the President-in-Office’s intervention and afterwards each of us should have the right to a supplementary question. Mr President, I propose that we all have the right to a second brief intervention which would compensate for that hypothetical supplementary question which we would otherwise have the right to. The debate will be brief but we would conserve our rights under the Rules of Procedure.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am pleasantly surprised that, as delegation leader Mr Galeote, you too have asked to speak on fisheries today. You even have three minutes, time enough to score an equaliser, I think. This official support – I trust you are indeed supporting the reform, Mr Galeote – would be most welcome from all the honourable Members. Unfortunately, the fishing boat appears to have no one at the helm and there is a storm brewing, and not just in the Committee on Fisheries, unfortunately! Perhaps in future every Member of this House could explain exactly which hat they are wearing when they address us. Now to you, Mr Fischler. Who, apart from you, will be our contact in your directorate-general in future, now that your important colleague is – not to put too fine a point on it – in the political wilderness? And can we really expect the taxpayer to pay for people to move into consultancy posts when no one succeeds to office? Who, at long last, is going to give me, is going to give all of us the data and facts we need if we are to back the reform? Please, we need to see your figures and how you arrived at them. With all these attacks going on, we need answers. Having said which, may I ask you Mr Crespo – at least I would if you were still here – then you, Mr Noguera, what you mean by this North-South conflict you keep referring to? Are we really at war, Mrs Figueiredo? Why did our Spanish friends in the Committee on Fisheries welcome the new Amigos de la Pesca grouping with such jubilation? Does this group integrate or render asunder? Why are the other fisheries nations not involved? Are they not wanted? Where does this leave the Community? I was in the Spanish port of Vigo just yesterday. A few people said, 'Keep up the good work, girl!', but there are widely differing views on the matter there. Alarm bells are going off in all directions. I hope that everyone speaking on fisheries here today and tomorrow is up for integration. In the final analysis, we all want reform, because we have fished everything there is out of the sea. And now we must bear the consequences – as a Community!

Political group: PPE-DE