GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Mr Patten, you are well acquainted with this region. Next week the IOC will decide which country is to host the 2008 Olympic Games. The People's Republic of China, which is currently seeking political recognition on all fronts, would appear to be the most likely candidate. Anyone who thinks that Beijing does not stand a chance after failing in its bid in 2000 and 2004, has not thought hard enough. Politics in China have nothing in common with the spirit of the Olympic Games. Human rights are trampled underfoot and freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate are countered with aggression. Tibet has been occupied for over 50 years. Minorities such as the Uighurs and Mongolians are prevented from exercising their rights and are losing their cultural identity. Fair hearings are denied. The death penalty, which we have just debated, is handed out and is often carried out in public as a deterrent. Sport cannot be divorced from politics. Berlin in 1936 showed how the rally of the Jugend der Welt, with 100,000 spectators and a million people sitting in front of their radios and televisions, was subverted to the cause of propaganda. The people's joy was genuine, the organisation was perfect, but this positive image was hijacked by the nazi regime in order to win recognition for the dictatorship. The reaction to the boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow following the march of the Red Army on Afghanistan varied widely – and rightly so. There was one common understanding, however. Whenever international law is violated, it cannot just be business as usual. In the case of China, our complaint in the Group is that for decades they have been destroying forests, polluting rivers and failing to control emissions to the point at which the whole ecosystem is on the brink of collapse. Animal rights protestors are rightly horrified by the level of cruelty, which hardly anyone has been able to gauge fully. Seven thousand bears are locked in harrowingly narrow cages in China and gall is constantly extracted from them, while they are still alive, in order to manufacture cosmetics and medicines. For that there can be no excuse. There are therefore a plethora of arguments as to why China should not host the Olympic Games. Does anyone in this House really believe that anything will change in the next seven years? The People's Republic of China is free to make a new bid and it will be a worthy host of the Olympic Games if it puts the right conditions in place, by ending human rights violations and paving the way for democracy and the rule of law. Only once China has become a member of our community of values can the IOC say yes to such a bid next week or in the future in good conscience. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I asked earlier to take the floor for a point of order. This is what I wanted to say:

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am quite aware of the inconsistencies in the common organisation of the market in bananas and associated relations with the WTO. It is difficult to take into account the various requirements and follow a policy which will favour the weakest parties and supply a high-quality product at affordable prices. Having said that, it is not that I do not think it is possible, as put forward in the Commission proposal, to adopt, as of 2006, a system which does not impose quota restrictions or tariffs on ACP countries or any other countries. Postponing this until 2010 would not make much difference, although that would undoubtedly give us more time to find less damaging solutions. The Commission’s proposal is too similar to the proposal of the Council of Ministers, which does not consider it necessary to allocate part of the budget to a policy of cooperation and protection of the Community’s primary producers in accordance with WTO negotiations. Rather than adapting to the WTO system, we should endeavour to reform it without giving in to blackmail by US multinationals which make a profit out of exploiting poor countries. We are all aware of the illiberal acts of these multinationals, which are destroying and corrupting both people and the environment. The challenge should be to reform the WTO. The Seattle Summit and the huge public demonstrations made the need plain. We must reform the WTO, without adversely affecting development and protection policies for poor countries, small producers and craftsmen, but, as per the Dary report on facilitating access to the market for fair-trade organisations in order to invest in environmentally-friendly and socially viable farming practices. This should be the European Union’s policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, while the entire world is currently focussed on Iraq and the Chamber was full when we talked about it just now, it is the case that the attitude of North Korea is perhaps more worrying and that the danger it poses is very real. I do not have many real differences with our fellow Members from the on this issue. North Korea is withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, refusing inspections by the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and re-launching its nuclear programme. And what are we doing? Are we going to threaten war? No! Thank goodness for that and I am glad to see such wisdom. I entirely agree with the motion for a resolution. I would like to highlight three points from it. The first point relates to Pakistan’s role in this issue. Pakistan is one of our supposed allies, an American ally, which, solely due to the fact that it claims to be fighting terrorism, could, furthermore, without anyone taking any notice, provide North Korea with enriched uranium. We find this completely unacceptable and it should be condemned. Secondly, I welcome the decision of the Council and the Commission to also view the North Korean problem from a humanitarian perspective. From a humanitarian perspective without cutting humanitarian aid, but also trying to find other solutions to the problem of energy, which is a very serious problem in North Korea. Finally, the point which is probably closest to our hearts, which is dialogue. We believe it is urgent that we initiate dialogue between the seven major powers, which are the European Union, the United States, Japan, Russia, China, North Korea and South Korea, on economic, security and peace issues. I believe that it is really this firm dialogue which could lead to a solution to the issue.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent and timely report. As he said, we now live in a world that is totally interdependent, and the problems of one country are problems for all of us, problems such as poverty, hunger, disease, ecological disasters and crime. It is our joint responsibility to resolve these problems and to work towards a consistent and coherent strategy. Development aid can play a pivotal role in working towards solutions, but only if it is free of trade commitments. The proposals we have in front of us are a positive step towards achieving greater effectiveness of development aid. Untying aid is a direct way of increasing that effectiveness, but we need to acknowledge and recognise, as the Commissioner has made clear, that among certain Member States tying aid is still common practice. We must therefore take immediate action to address the inadequacy of our current practices. Commissioner, may I say 'more power to your elbow!' when you see the recalcitrant Member State in court, because we cannot have one Member State playing a different game from the others. We have, as you say, a single market. I support the need for reform. It will lead to increasing transparency and accountability. It is a complex process, and we welcome the intention of the Commission to bring forward the legislative proposals and the changes to existing legislation, hoping that this will not result in more bureaucracy. I should like to stress that this untying of aid from trade is not a final step, but it is one means of increasing the effectiveness of granting aid. The main purpose of granting aid is poverty reduction. So it is not an isolated concept, but part of an ongoing debate which will be pursued to some extent in Cancun next week.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, once again we face a fundamental ethical debate on developments in biotechnology as applied to humans. There are two opposing views in play: the first refuses to turn the human being and more specifically the embryo into a tool and is concerned at the potential risks for human society of the widespread use of certain techniques such as cloning. The second view considers that the right of those suffering from serious and hitherto incurable illnesses to be able to benefit from the potential of medical research takes precedence over any other consideration. The British Government, without any prior consultation with other countries – and I emphasise this point – has apparently opted for the second approach, by declaring itself to be in favour of therapeutic cloning. The idea behind this decision is that therapeutic cloning, that is, the cloning of embryonic cells that are undifferentiated from human embryos available for research and production is a promising way forward. Even if this idea is well-founded, it is nonetheless true that this option gives human embryos the status of stock cells for medical use and involves the production of embryos, first for research purposes, and then, probably, for production. I feel that it is extremely important to make two observations at this point. First of all, I would remind you of the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Bio-Medicine, adopted in Oviedo, in April 1997. It is probably fair to criticise this convention for its vagueness on a number of points, but in Article 18, it states quite clearly that the production of human embryos for research purposes is prohibited. There has been consensus on this point throughout Europe until quite recently, but this consensus has just been broken by the position adopted by the government of the United Kingdom. My second observation is that, according to several experts, and as Mr Busquin, Commissioner for Research mentioned earlier, there are other routes open to respond to the legitimate expectations of those who are suffering from serious genetic illnesses. In particular, there are routes that do not require the production of embryos by cloning, but which use adult cells. Why then, given this scenario, should we immediately rush into something that is ethically and socially questionable? To conclude, I believe that the knowledge that has been acquired in gene therapy could be promising for humanity, but that they are also full of potential risks and are open to serious abuse. We therefore need a rigorous legal framework and clear legal guidelines. Upholding the ban on human cloning, rather than establishing it in the first place – I am talking about upholding the ban – is crucial in this respect. Our Parliament has the responsibility of restating this, not by rushing into anything, but simply by remaining consistent with our earlier positions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have the awful situation where one EU Member State permits therapeutic cloning, which we have always been critical of. The people of the European Union are expecting the European Parliament to take a stance on this. I think it would be irresponsible if we were draw a veil over the issue by saying: ‘just to pacify you, we will set up an interminable debating society, or a temporary committee.’ We must take a stance on this decision, which is to be taken in the course of the next few weeks – yes as soon as that- without further ado, and then of course we must state our position on the issues we can expect to deal with in the future. But on no account must we gloss over this by failing to make our feelings known and by trying to conceal things in committees, which will disconcert the public. I believe that what is happening now is of crucial importance. If we accept therapeutic cloning, then we will be opening Pandora’s box. It would bring the nightmare scenario of cloned and made-to-measure human beings that much closer. The arbitrary distinction between reproductive and non-reproductive cloning is semantic sleight of hand. The term ‘therapeutic cloning’ is equally problematic, because there is no question of it being a therapy. Cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is the first step along the way to human beings being regarded merely as biological material. It is indefensible to deliberately – I repeat, deliberately – create life in order to use it as research material. This conflicts with human rights. We are also dividing up the concept of human dignity when we deliberately produce embryos in order to have a ready supply of spare parts. That is why Parliament must use its power to act. Commissioner for Research, I am also expecting you to make an unequivocal statement today, on how you propose to proceed when a Member State disregards the resolutions of Parliament and the Council. We need a clear signal, and I feel it would be a sad day for politics if we were to cast aside all our ethical misgivings out of loyalty to Blair.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on Monday evening I asked Mrs Fontaine to make the exchange of letters between Mr Bush and Mr Prodi available to all Members. Mrs Fontaine replied that it would be done. The next day, during the meeting of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, the Commission representative expressed surprise that Members had not seen Mr Prodi’s letter of reply to Mr Bush. These letters have still not been made public. In plenary this morning, Mr Vitorino acknowledged that this exchange of letters was not private and that Mr Prodi had replied in the name of Parliament as a whole. Before the highly important vote we will soon be holding on relations between Europe and the United States, I would urgently ask for the exchange of letters between Mr Bush and Mr Prodi to be made available to all Members. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must congratulate Mr Wynn on his work as both Chairman and rapporteur. His is an excellent report. I am delighted it has been favourably received by all the political groups. I should like to point out to Mr Wynn that even as disparate a group as the Group of the European People’s Party only intends to table a single amendment. This is an indication of the scale of our effort to achieve consensus and support the report. Further, my group strongly supports adjustment of the current system of distinguishing between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure. This has now become a common position of Parliament. It should always be taken into account when specific types of expenditure can be guaranteed, notably in the case of agriculture. We endorse most of the proposals put forward by the Convention’s working groups seeking to ensure the principle of a dual budgetary authority: Parliament and Council. The Group of the European People’s Party is of the opinion that the most effective way of ensuring this comes about is to formalise a balance between both branches of the budgetary authority. The budget would be adopted by a codecision procedure adjusted to this specific case. In the event of failure to reach agreement, the Council would have the final say on income and Parliament on expenditure. As regards the financial perspectives, we believe it is imperative to endow them with greater flexibility. This would ensure an effective response to unexpected situations. Unduly rigid provisions have sometimes served to safeguard expenditure. On other occasions, however, such rigidity has hindered more effective allocation of resources. We fully endorse the proposal by the Convention’s working group to include financial perspectives in the treaty, together with provisions on discipline and budgetary cooperation. In the interests of providing continuity regarding financial decisions, financial perspectives should cover the five-year term of Parliament and the Commission. Finally, reform of the budgetary procedure must be based on simplification with a view to greater democratisation, legitimacy and transparency. We therefore fully endorse the proposal to do away with first reading in the Council, as this seems to be consistent with the objective of simplification. Further, we reject the amendments leading beyond this debate, as we wish the document presented to the Convention to enjoy the fullest possible support of the House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the quintessence of the European Union is not the ideals of democracy and freedom pronounced in the report; it is to serve big business, in this particular instance big shipping business. That requires laws and measures as a protective shield for their interests. The objective is to increase their excessive profits by abolishing seamen's fundamental rights. Once again, with terrorism as the pretext, an effort is being made to impose a regime of spying and policing in ports and on ships, with an extensive network of monitoring and repression, in the aim of striking policy and trade union action and trampling the grass-roots movement underfoot, in the face of the reactions provoked by the promotion of privatisation. That is why nothing is said about the real problems and the real threats to maritime security, in other words the health and safety of those working on ships and in ports, the age of the fleet and the 'cut-throat' ports or ports of convenience preached by the privatisation directive. Not a word about the responsibilities of big shipowners, who are accessories to the tragic maritime crimes which make them pioneering terrorists. Not a reference to the fact that regional decisions about the safety of ships essentially weaken the role of the International Maritime Organisation and undermine the safety rules within the framework of an economic war and race for profit. This is a wretched transaction between capitalists at the expense of the safety of life at sea and the marine environment, in the aim of increasing their excessive profits. The unaccountability of the shipping business is being strengthened through flags of convenience, the privatisation of shipping registers and the lack of any substantial inspections or controls by state authorities. These are the real and major terrorist threats to shipping, not the ghost pirates the European Union is looking for. A mass, dynamic, grass-roots movement needs to develop against these policies to grab public assets and impose a mediaeval working regime and slave wages.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am voting in favour of its being possible to prosecute Mr Camre in Denmark. It is a sound democratic principle that a Danish court should decide whether there has been any breach of Danish law. Important objections may be raised to Paragraph 266 b of Danish criminal law (the racism paragraph), but for as long as Paragraph 266 b is a part of Danish law, matters concerning the significance of the racism paragraph must be decided by Danish legal bodies. It is a serious warning of the EU’s growing power over the Danish legal system that an EU institution should have the power to prevent Danish courts from carrying out those tasks that fall to them under the constitution. In line with Mr Chirac and Mr Berlusconi, Mr Camre is hiding behind an anachronistic immunity and thereby significantly helping to undermine the constitutional state that his party chairman nowadays attacks openly. - Gargani report (A5-0234/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The fact that the outermost regions exist is tied up to a large degree with colonial history. In the Middle Ages, those regions and their people did not belong to Europe, and even today, they are not really considered to be European. Even before the nineteenth century, Spain, Portugal, France, England and the Netherlands had already conquered substantial colonial empires and Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Italy tried to follow in their footsteps for a short while. This colonial era has now passed. The suppressed peoples have fought for their freedom, or were given their independence as a preventive measure, because the former rulers had no appetite for a war of liberation which they would end up losing. All that the EU Member States have left outside Europe in terms of territory are small or sparsely populated sections of their former colonial empire. The EU Member States deal with their outermost regions in very different ways. Spain and Portugal consider their islands in the Atlantic as remote regions. Those islands can, given their present composition of population and their relative proximity, be considered normal parts of their countries. Similarly, the Netherlands and Denmark each have two regions in, or on the other side of, the Atlantic, but those areas are expressly not included in the European Union. France, on the other hand, owns overseas departments in the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean. This proposal has confronted my group with a difficult choice. On the one hand, we want to support disadvantaged areas in and outside of Europe so that they achieve the same standard of living and level of amenities that is now current in the EU. That is a question of solidarity. On the other hand, we have serious doubts as to whether or not former colonies should be declared outermost regions. A case can be made for the Spanish and Portuguese islands, but not really for the more remote regions. These should ideally be given the same status as the current ACP states which, after the same kind of history, have ended up in a different type of relationship with Europe. In assessing the amendments, my group has tried to tread a middle path between the most far-reaching demands of those protecting the interests of the outermost regions and the indifference towards, or even repugnance for, this topic felt in Member States which cannot relate to it in any way. In any case, we have, however, subordinated our repugnance for this topic’s colonial backdrop to the interests of those living in the regions concerned.

Political group: GUE-NGL