GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this draft directive is, in fact, the first legal instrument to be introduced by us in the realm of legal immigration. I am therefore pleased that, at least now at the third attempt, the proposal presented by the Commission is based on a sound approach, and we support it, not least because it incorporates many of our parliamentary proposals, particularly those made by the Group of the European People’s Party . I consider it especially encouraging, for the sake of the labour market in the European Union, the social safety net and the interests of the Union with regard to the integration of non-EU nationals, that the concept of the family introduced in this draft is that of the nuclear family, in other words that the family as defined in the draft is restricted to parents and minor children. I also find it encouraging that the Council has already given its political approval to this proposal and that we can expect the final adoption of the directive based on this narrow definition of the family to be effected in the month of May. The report before us, on the other hand, which we are now discussing, is a very definite backward step, a return to the Stone Age, as it were, of immigration policy. It quite simply ignores the realities and opportunities that exist in our Member States. For example, by redefining the family, you are calling for the extension of the directive to unmarried partners, adult offspring and other relatives. You even go so far as to ask for the immigration of second and third wives and their children. That, if I may say so, is inconsistent with the tradition and culture of Europe. You call for shorter time limits, and you seek to curb Member States’ scope to impose appropriate restrictions through their own national laws and regulations. The proposal presented by the Commission is sound. We in the Group of the European People’s Party shall support it. We utterly reject, however, the proposals tabled by the rapporteur, which would extend the concept of family far beyond the limits that the European Union can accept as a tolerable basis for its immigration policy. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Iran is celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Islamic revolution in a state of deep political crisis, with thousands of progressive candidates having been excluded from the imminent elections and with millions of Iranians who voted in favour of the reforms wondering where the country is heading. The extent of the exclusions also includes numerous important women who played a leading part in the legislative reforms and, as a result, the position of women is further deteriorating in Iran. These are women with whom we have cooperated constructively within the framework of the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights. Elections are a symbol of democracy only when they are conducted properly, to quote President Khatami. Nonetheless, it would appear that above President Khatami and the democratically elected representatives of the people stands the all powerful Revolutionary Council, which is endeavouring to deprive the parliament which will come out of the elections on 20 February of any democratic voice or powers of reform. It is known that of all the bills voted for by parliament in 2000, over one-third were not ratified by the Council. It is a fact that Iran, a country with a long history and an important geopolitical position, can play a strategic role in the stability of the area, especially in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I fear that efforts by the hard core to bend the will of the Iranian people may result not only in a parliament which has no democratic legitimacy, but also in the weakening of Iran's international position. Without doubt, Iran's basic problem is its power structure. No reform efforts and no progress with respect for human rights can be made while the Islamic Revolutionary Guards show disdain for the decisions taken under democratic procedures. The recent moratorium on stoning must be converted to legislation which will put an end to this horrific punishment. And I should like to take this opportunity to add something else. I hope that Iran will include women in the teams which it sends to Athens to represent it at the 2004 Olympic Games.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my father, Robert Purvis, is 90 and not too well just now. He is much of the reason why I am here – an MEP, a Scotsman, a European. In the early 1930s he spent much time in Germany. He had good German friends. He witnessed and worried about the rise of Nazism. While I was very small he was away for long periods, parachuted into southern Serbia to support the brave fight of the royalist Serbs against Nazism. Next he parachuted into the Hautes-Alpes of France to fight with the Maquis and prepare that part of Europe for liberation. I have photographs of him as the tricolour was raised anew in Mont-Dauphin and Briançon. Immediately after the war he went back to Germany to help restore agriculture and food supplies in North Rhine-Westphalia, Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein. My brother and I joined him there. We played in the rubble of Hamburg, we made good German friends in our turn. On my first day in this Parliament, in 1979, one of our then German colleagues approached me. 'Are you Purvis?' 'Yes.' 'I remember rocking you on my knee in your kilt in Hamburg in 1946. We so respected your father,' he said. 'He could have taken advantage of us but he didn't. He did all he could fairly to share out scarce resources and restore our country.' Father is in his 90s. I am in my 60s, my children in their 30s, my grandchildren between 0 and 5 – four generations of a Scottish and a European family. It is this European Union, this Parliament, that are our families' guarantee that the peace and security for which my father has fought and worked in his lifetime will indeed continue for future generations – the solidarity of generations. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Europe must take measures relating to car use if we wish to comply with our Kyoto obligations. It would be shortsighted to try to attain the Kyoto targets at the expense of those who create employment, if no previous attempt had been made to exploit all the opportunities which transport affords for reducing emissions. The EU has already concluded agreements, for example with European car manufacturers, concerning production of cars which are cleaner and perform better in terms of fuel economy. The directive now before us is important for efforts to achieve the same end from the demand side by making costs visible to consumers. It is just a pity that the Commission proposal comes on its own. For it to be adopted, it ought to be discussed in a broad context: within a decade it is proposed to establish a European tax system comprising charges for vehicle registration and use, an intelligent pricing system for infrastructure, and harmonised fuel taxes. As it is not possible to adopt such a comprehensive approach now, and as this directive fixes the level of fuel taxes for quite a long time, a decision seems unlikely. A comprehensive review would be in the interests of consumers and would ensure balanced development of transport in sparsely populated regions where no public transport is available. In rural and remote regions, people are more dependent on private cars, and the external costs of transport are lower than elsewhere. People have a tendency to reconsider their choices only when a major change occurs, such as when moving house, transferring to a new place of employment or buying a new car; they may not even realise substantial developments in public services have been made. Accordingly, big changes in immediately perceptible costs, such as fuel prices or road pricing, are important initiators of choice processes. In that sense, a linear model for increasing excise on fuel may be too slow and gradual to spur consumers genuinely to perceive the situation in such a way as to change their consumption patterns. At all events, it is important from the outset to stress in public information the ultimate objective of internalising the external costs of transport. Diesel vehicles consume less fuel and produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions. It must, however, be remembered that they emit more nitrogen oxides and particulates, which are a serious threat to public health. It may be considered a justified objective, therefore, to align the rates of excise duty on diesel and petrol.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have been pressing Russia to seek a political solution for Chechnya. Our threat of sanctions has not led to a result. To be able to have an influence on a political solution for Chechnya, I think we should embark on political dialogue on the issue with the Russian leadership; a political solution using political means with a new leadership. 70% of the members of the Duma are new, and Russia has a new acting president. This acting president has said he wants political dialogue. He has already met a delegation from the European Council and talked with them for three hours. I propose that a parliamentary delegation should go to Moscow to have political talks with the new leadership. I furthermore propose that Commissioner Christopher Patten, who has responsibility for foreign affairs, should likewise open political discussions on the situation in Chechnya. Using political means we can have an effect on a political war, which is now what it has become.

Political group: PSE
We endorse the proposal that the Commission should draft a Green Paper on higher education in order to launch what is known as the Bologna process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to extend a particularly warm, friendly and affectionate welcome to our colleagues and neighbours from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and to welcome the real burgeoning democracy which will bring it closer to the European Union. I am sure that our colleagues expect a Greek MEP to say something about the dispute over the name. Perhaps this dispute should never have arisen, perhaps it should have been settled a long time ago; in any event, negotiations are under way, friendly negotiations, and I trust that this problem will soon be resolved. For the rest, Greece wholeheartedly supports its neighbouring state. Everything we have heard here about what the European Union should be doing, in the form of action rather than high-flying words, Greece is already doing. In other words, Greece is already providing economic support in the form of investments – it is one of the biggest, if not the biggest investor in our neighbouring country – and through trade. It is providing political support by steadfastly backing the policy of reconciliation being applied by the government in our neighbouring country to the extremely difficult, the terribly difficult internal problems which it faces and it is providing international support in that it has officially called on NATO to prevent the anarchy which other areas in the region are endeavouring to import via our neighbouring country. We should not be lulled by the calm here in Parliament into underestimating just how terrible the problems being created are. Extremists are using age-old, familiar tactics to kill, plunder and create incidents in order to set two groups in the same country – and in the final analysis from the same nation, because they are Europeans just like us – at each others’ throats. It is a familiar tactic. Unfortunately, it has proven effective and we must oppose it. Unfortunately we, the European Union, have added grist to the mill of mutual destruction with our mistakes. We must stand firm in our opposition and prove that we can bring about reconciliation and facilitate collaboration between nations; this is the only way of forging a link in the chain of peace rather than creating a hotbed of discontent.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, everyone shares the euphoria about the recent developments in Georgia: the storming of the parliament and the resignation of President Shevardnadze, who at one time enjoyed sustained acclaim. After a long tradition of having been the first colony in tsarist Russia, and then having been the birthplace of Stalin, and finally Eduard Shevardnadze, there now comes democracy. It is reminiscent of the Central Europe of previous years: Romania after Ceaucescu, or Serbia after Milosevic. Many European countries will be inclined to think: this is a nearby region, a Christian region, together with Armenia, but at the same time a long way away from us, only accessible from the Black Sea, via Turkey or via Russia. What relations could the European Union have in the future with that country? In addition, Mr Belder has already drawn attention to the problem of its national minorities, and Abkhazia, in particular, has been a Georgian breakaway region for a long time now. The inhabitants of South Ossetia are actually unhappy about being part of Georgia, and in Ajaria people are supporting a leader who would gladly have remained loyal to Eduard Shevardnadze. A great many unresolved problems remain, therefore, and I think that, if a solution is not found to these internal problems, the democracy that is now able to get off the ground in Georgia will start at a disadvantage. It is very important to work towards this, therefore. In Amendment No 3, my group calls for the EU to ensure that its involvement, which is supposed to make a contribution to democracy, does not lead to interference in Georgia’s domestic politics. We do not believe that the purposes of democracy would be served by the European Union adopting the wrong attitude, putting too much emphasis on forcing together different population groups that have difficulty living together. It will have to be a cautious process, one that is primarily based on the efforts of the peoples of Georgia themselves: the Georgians as the largest group, but also taking account of the three large national minorities.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the oral amendment which I am about to read out replaces Amendment No 4 and Amendment No 5. There was consensus among all the groups tabling the joint motion. It supplements Paragraph 16 and reads: “Favours the convening of a Euro-Mediterranean conference on agriculture, with the participation of representatives of the institutions, members of the agri-foodstuffs industry and representatives of farmers’ and consumers’ organisations”. (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0057/2000) by Mr Hernández Mollar, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on asylum-seekers and migrants: action plans for countries of origin or transit – High Level Working Group (C5-0159/1999 – C5-0160/1999 – C5-0161/1999 – C5-0162/1999 – C5-0163/1999 – C5-0164/1999 – C5-0165/1999 – C4-0133/1999 – 1999/2096(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0052/2000) by Mrs Klamt, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of measures to combat child sex tourism (COM(1999) 262 – C5-0096/1999 – 1999/2097(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0061/2000) by Mr MacCormick, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the Commission Green Paper on liability for defective products (COM(1999) 396 – C5-0184/1999 – 1999/2158(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0078/2000) by Mr Turmes, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on electricity from renewable energy sources and the internal electricity market (SEC(1999) 470 – C5-0342/1999 – 2000/2002(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the decision of the European Patent Office on the cloning of human beings Concerning Amendment No 4:

Political group: PSE
Madam President, once again it is a genuine pleasure to be working with my friend Mr Miller. I want to pay tribute to him for his persistence in working through this, and particularly for the masterly way in which he handled the conciliation process. This is the first time I have been involved in a trialogue, so I have been able to study the process at work. Indeed, as he says, we have reached a very satisfactory outcome. I fully supported the final compromise and, indeed, the benefits that it will deliver. It is important that we finally, after five long years, bring this to a close. In a moment I shall refer to some of the issues involved. However, it is important to add that, in delivering the sort of benefits that Mr Miller was talking about, we need to reflect the fact that a lot of other improvements to the infrastructure associated with public transport will also be needed. The buses are only part of it. That is something that we have not been able to tackle but that other committees will wish to look at. What about the principles? He quite rightly said – I tipped him off beforehand – that we will be abstaining on this. It will go through tomorrow. We certainly do not wish to obstruct it or vote against the conciliation procedure, but we feel, on this side of the House, that the principles that led us to vote against this last time – and my colleague, Mr Rübig, who will speak later, is a veteran of the previous process – are entirely consistent. So we will not be obstructing it. It will go on its way with our qualified support. Mr Miller has played the role of the man riding the last dinosaur, if I may put it that way. Commissioner Liikanen told us at second reading in the debate that he does not envisage bringing a regulation of this complexity before Parliament again. That is absolutely the right approach. I want to take the opportunity to say to the House tonight that I, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, have made a proposal to other committees and to the Commission on ways in which Parliament can exercise its political role in scrutinising and putting forward ideas for motor vehicle regulation. We have suggested that the Commission should bring to us on an annual basis a comprehensive report on its plans for future motor vehicle regulation, specifying where it is going to use the Economic Commission for Europe proposals and, indeed, covering some of the voluntary regulation process that we have talked about. That will allow this Parliament, through all its various committees, to take a serious look at the political content of regulation and not ever again become immersed for five years in this sort of complex, technical regulation – a process that we finally sign off this evening.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the in the Group of the are able fully to support what has been said by the Council and the Commission. Turkey’s constitutional court wishes to declare a further political party illegal. Over the last 40 years, as many as 23 political parties have been declared illegal in Turkey. These have been parties with religious, regional, cultural and ethnic bases which have been considered to go against the Kemalist structure of the unitary state. Allow me to draw a clear comparison. If we had had such a constitution among the various Member States of the European Union, a large number of parties would have been declared illegal including, for example, my own party, the Swedish Christian Democratic Party, and its sister parties throughout the EU. I promise that we in the European Parliament will show no lack of vigour, energy and persistence in monitoring this judicial process in Turkey. Within the framework of an ad hoc delegation, we intend to act in such a way as to protect democratic rights, the multiparty system and, of course, the rights of the Kurdish minority too in Turkey. Kemal Atatürk, who died more than 60 years ago, founded a unitary Turkish state. It is time for a debate among the Turkish people about whether this constitution and this unitary state fulfil the requirements of modern society and pluralistic democracy. My view is that the Kemalist unitary state is based more upon power, threats, compulsion and authoritarian demands for loyalty than upon winning over people’s hearts and inspiring an inner loyalty, healthy affection and patriotism in relation to their own country. The time should be past when a constitutional court declares one political party after another illegal. Moreover, these are large political parties more often than not. Turkey has not signed the Council of Europe’s convention governing the rights of minorities and proceeds ultimately on the basis of Kemal Atatürk’s constitution harking back to the 1920s and 1930s. I wonder if Turkey is not in actual fact scoring an own goal by not opening itself to the outside world and not acting differently towards its minorities. Only if it changes in these ways can people’s hearts be won over in Turkey and the rest of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my request was a clarification. If we get to vote on the original text of that paragraph, if we get past the vote on the amendment, at that point I want to propose a vote on the words 'and socially-balanced' separately from the rest of the text. I am not proposing an oral amendment. We should proceed to vote the amendment first. Depending on the result of that, my point is that I am proposing a separate vote on the original text. So I am not proposing an oral amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner's heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE