GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I represent as you say, a composite group in this, the Group of the and the , and I would like to thank personally Jo Leinen very much for his colleaguely courtesy and goodwill in carrying out this work. Undoubtedly, unlike Mr Ribeiro e Castro, I think that what has been produced is a genuine attempt at a compromise and one which I believe a majority of my Group will be happy to accept, although other colleagues who will speak in the debate will draw attention to particular points of concern. From the point of view of the which I particularly represent here, there are, however, genuine concerns about the way in which the criteria are chosen: the way in which one specifies what counts. Currently in this Parliament, the represents a wide range of what we would think of as distinct countries within the European Union – Andalusia, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Flanders, Galicia, Scotland and Wales, to take them in alphabetical order in the English language – but of course, from the point of view of a criterion based upon States, that is only three States. When I look at the new flags beautifully adorning the podium there, I see that there are flags of many countries which are present or future Member States and which are actually, in terms of either territory or population or both, considerably smaller than the countries I have mentioned. So the kind of movement in thought – and it is a European movement in thought – which the represents is actively discriminated against by a criterion specified simply in terms of a proportion of the total number of Member States. That really is something that needs to be reflected upon. A Parliament of this kind and a Union of this kind must have a very particular regard for the interests of minorities and for fairness to minorities and the rights of smaller groups. I know that the compromise has aimed to move in our direction and I appreciate that very much, but the fact of the matter is that there is still a serious difficulty from the point of view of this genuine European tide of opinion. The has been recognised for a long time as one of the original Europe-wide political families, and yet we will stand on the margins of being excluded and de-recognised under these proposals. I am afraid we cannot support them in this form.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, the debate about the situation in Iraq and possible military intervention is of course also a debate about the nature of solidarity. When some Members of this House, Mr Van Orden and Mr Tannock, talk about solidarity, they chiefly mean solidarity with the United States. For me it chiefly means solidarity within Europe. That is why I am concerned that the United Kingdom, but also Spain and Italy, are going down a path that suggests that this solidarity could be undermined. What particularly concerns me is the yawning gap between the United States' and Europe's conceptions of international world order. The US seems to be increasingly drawn to a theory that international agreements and organisations have, as it were, a merely substitutional role. For the major powers at least, it seems that national sovereignty and a national view of the world have top priority. I have great difficulty with the US view that they can decide when to support an international organisation, be it 'just' the United Nations or the International Criminal Court, and when they themselves should act and when they can carry out pre-emptive strikes, and whereby they can define the danger and make decisions on deployment without consulting the international authorities. Lastly, I also have a big problem with the idea that the President of the United States can read a book over the summer that says that you should not trust the military, because the military will hesitate and always see the risk of failure, and that the sign of a true politician is that he distrusts the military. Given that the same author, Elliot Cohen, believes that we did not drop enough bombs on Yugoslavia, any country that listens to advisers like that really worries me. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, yesterday I went to Rome to see the newly elected Parliament in Italy. Among the members elected to the Chamber of Deputies is Mr Fatuzzo. You will think it is me, Mr President, but it is not me. You know that Julius Caesar belonged to the Julian clan, and now Mr Fabio Fatuzzo, who has been elected to the Italian Parliament, belongs to the Fatuzzo family. I therefore went round to see him to congratulate him on his election, accompanied by the driver, Ugo Gustinetti, a pensioner, who said to me, ‘As a pensioner, I am very much in favour of this report on the environmental programme because we must have clean air to breathe. So vote for it!’ That is what I have done, following the advice of the Pensioners’ Party driver, Ugo Gustinetti.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up; they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more; instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Caudron has just given us his shopping list of good intentions and I have no intention of repeating it. I would just like to say that although I am happy with it, I would have preferred a more strategic debate. I, like Mrs Wallis, think that we have to set priorities and that Europe has to decide on its place and its role in the world and in the future of the world. This is really the main priority for me and for us. We must start by adapting our own institutions and asking ourselves whether our own house is in order. I would again ask for attention to be given to the place of the regions, this is becoming an important issue. So many small states will be joining the European Union, with all that entails, including their own language, their own place in the Council, in Parliament and in the Commission. The constitutional regions, the other regions too, the regions with their own language, their own culture, even with legislative and their own implementing authorities, will continue to be deprived of all this and be left behind empty-handed. I would ask whether they will then have to become a state to gain a respectable place in the European Union? That is an incitement to separatism. Secondly, we want the full integration of the countries that are going to become the European Union with us. Should we then, however, not do more so that the populations of these countries actually become involved? I hear the complaint for example that very many people are unable to find European Union documents available in their own language. However, I want to focus more attention, because that was yesterday’s debate, on the circles of partner countries that we have to develop. I think that this debate about the expansion of this second circle is of fundamental importance if we wish to conduct the debate about the boundaries of the Union in a positive manner. Personally I do not believe that Europe should extend to the borders of Iraq, Iran and Syria, but we do have to be able to offer Turkey an attractive partnership. At the moment this is something we are really talking too little about. Then there is our role in the world. Peace and development currently involve more than simply the follow-up to Johannesburg. As long as Europe is more part of the problem of poverty than part of the solution, then, Mr Nielsen, we have to place a big question mark by all the good things we undoubtedly do. Because we know that as long as we engage in agriculture, as long as we engage in trade as we currently do, we are more part of the problem.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to express my regret that we have engaged in a battle over amendments after the enormous success of Mrs Langenhagen’s report. I think that divisive forces have also been at work in the European Parliament, but I am convinced, from what I have heard, that they will not succeed. I hope that, however we vote on the amendments, tomorrow’s vote will be an overall majority in favour of the Galileo report. The most important thing is that Parliament does not become divided, and that it continues to show its support for Mrs de Palacio and the Commission on this extremely important project. We cannot merely focus on accounting and notarial-oriented matters when discussing a subject of this importance, when the Americans are pouring millions of dollars into their aerospace and space industry. We are today facing the acid test. Either the European Union is capable of launching a space programme as modest as Galileo, forty years after the daring innovations of Airbus and Ariane, or – as some Members who are sitting on other benches have said – we show that we are incapable of doing this. If we have to show that we are incapable of this, I do not want Parliament to take any responsibility for this and I hope that the Commission and Parliament will, in future, display a united front when showing the Council what its responsibilities are.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this excellently crafted report shows that the Committee on Budgetary Control can take a coherent and convincing position on such a controversial issue as the importance of budgetary control procedures and bodies. Budgetary control will always be a tough and thankless business, because it is not a question of handing out compliments but rather of pointing out weaknesses, mistakes and omissions and thereby improving the way the Commission handles the European taxpayers' money. In colloquial terms, what this report is saying is that in future the Committee on Budgetary Control will be more watchful and will want to hear names named when it comes to the unknown whereabouts of European tax monies. Neither the Commission nor the Member States will be able to absolve themselves of responsibility, certainly not by passing the buck from one to the other. Point 21 of the report contains a very courageous decision in announcing that the discharge will be postponed if the Commission withholds information. I hope this obligation will actually be applied if it comes to the crunch. Had Parliament taken this decision sooner, it could not have given the 1998 discharge. For in fact, the Commission is still withholding information and has still not answered questions, especially with regard to the Fléchard affair. I also want to highlight point 20 of the report. It is a clear declaration of belief in the rights of each and every Member to request and obtain information from the Commission, including confidential documents. This declaration of belief in the rights of individual Members is particularly important because these are precisely the rights the Commission is calling in question. It does make us rather apprehensive, Commissioner, to find that the Commission as Guardian of the Treaties has to be referred explicitly to the need to observe MEPs' rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
The compromise resolution on the situation in the Côte d’Ivoire requires the restoration of democratic legitimacy. But what are we dealing with here? Since the scandal of French colonial rule, via the dictatorship of Houphouët-Boigny and the regime of Konan Bédié that was as authoritarian as it was corrupt, to the military regime of Guei, the population of the Côte d’Ivoire has never experienced either truly free elections or democratic rights and freedoms. Behind the hypocritical rhetoric about democracy, the resolution deals mainly with the restoration of the authority of the State and the safety of property. Our own solidarity is with the overwhelming majority of the Côte d’Ivoire population, the workers, the unemployed, the small farmers, who have no possessions, who simply find it hard to survive. They have always had to suffer the repressive authority of the State as well as dictatorship and poverty. I would also point out the responsibility of the French State, whatever the colour of the government, which has not only supported the single party regime in the Côte d’Ivoire, but has presented it as a model of stability, even of democracy, for the whole of Africa. All that to protect the interests of the large French industrial concerns that are making themselves richer there by making the country poorer. So let us look to our own affairs before interfering in other people’s business, for if the real military regime of Guei and the false democracy of Bédié are reprehensible, then the great powers and their support for dictatorships in poor countries are even more reprehensible. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Regarding the 2004 Spring Summit, the Commission has missed a good opportunity to give its opinion by stressing real priorities that have been neglected for too long, the urgency of which should have been the basis of this resolution. The decay of basic environmental features – caused by decades of the West’s unsustainable obsession with productivity, ignoring a number of indicators, including environmental ones – is ever more obvious in terms of climate disruption, a fall in biodiversity and a marked increase in diseases linked to pollution. These phenomena are all the more alarming in that they now appear to be irreversible. They are so globalised that it is imperative that, from now on, they be at the centre of an exhaustive management of Community policies, radically overhauling the specific economic, financial or social dimensions that are now obsolete. The Spring Summit must set the seal on a change of era and recognise the need for energy restructuring where ‘renewable’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘economical’ are the key words. Changing tack from the traditional, overused and toxic approach would open up a new generation of jobs: public service jobs and jobs in the tertiary and social economy, free from the pressures of working hours set in stone, increased job insecurity in certain sectors and outdated discrimination. Symbolising the end of these obsolete patterns of thought and work, a reform of the eco-tax on the basis of an adjustment to tax practices makes a new common economic policy essential, breaking this collusion between economic growth and the use of resources.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I wholeheartedly support this report which addresses the need to tackle the growing mountain of waste in the EU. The original Commission text should be upgraded and tightened up to ensure a more ambitious strategy for countering this mountain of discarded packaging materials. As such, I welcome the concepts of prevention and producer responsibility; these will go some way in ensuring that the onus for implementing these measures is evenly spread across European citizens. I also welcome the call for producers to have taken 'all necessary measures to minimise its environmental impact', whilst at the same time I recognise that it may be difficult to standardise such a measure. Finally, placing this Directive into a broader context, to ensure that it is compatible with the Sixth Environment Action Programme, makes good sense and demonstrates that the EU is capable of joined-up thinking and a sensible approach to this matter. - Fava report (A5-0258/2002)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the readmission agreements that the Council is proposing stem more from a strategy for combating illegal immigration than from genuine cooperation. Allow me to stress two points. As far as the procedure is concerned, the lack of information given to Parliament raises the issue of the role and powers of parliamentarians: it is our democratic credibility that is at stake. We complain about the rate of abstention, about the fact that Europe is an unknown entity to the citizens, we want to convince citizens of the need for the Union, but, as long as their representatives are scorned and are not consulted, we cannot make the Europe of the citizen that we want to build credible. With regard to the readmission clauses, the Union reaffirmed its commitment to the Geneva and Dublin Conventions at the Tampere Summit. It is therefore unacceptable that these readmission agreements can make it possible to send back third country nationals when there is no guarantee that human rights and democratic freedoms will be respected in their country of origin. What criteria are applied in order to verify that a country to which a national is being returned is safe? The European Union is basing its policy on respect for fundamental rights. This applies, in particular, to the measures which regulate the movement of individuals, and especially to the measures relating to voluntary or forced return. How does the Commission intend to verify that these rights are respected in case of return, particularly when it is a question of mass returns? These issues are real issues. Today, Afghans may be returned to Afghanistan despite the fact that there is no guarantee of their safety and of peace in the region. The closure of Sangatte has provided no solution to the problem of accepting refugees; Kurds and Iraqis continue to arrive every day. Are the readmission agreements compatible with the obligations under international law, do they respect the principle of ‘non-refoulement’, on which the right to seek asylum depends? What common control mechanisms does the Commission intend to put in place with the countries with which these agreements are negotiated? We should like to have been reassured that these fundamental rights are being respected. In spite of the quality of the work of our rapporteur, we have no guarantee regarding these questions that are fundamental for our freedoms and our rights. The readmission clauses provide a response to the concerns regarding the interests of the countries of the Union instead of assisting the development of third countries. They are harmful to any Community immigration and asylum policy; we are therefore unable to support them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is extraordinary that the European Union should wish to implement a security policy designed to prevent and solve conflicts. The European Union possesses political, economic and diplomatic resources for this purpose. True, the resolution says it is desirable that non-military measures should be used first, but the possible use of military forces is not excluded. I cannot support the proposal that military resources should be used to defend the European Union’s interests. In my opinion, it should only be possible to take military action following a decision in the United Nations’ Security Council. It is not enough just to follow the principles of the United Nations’ Charter. I cannot, therefore, support the resolution. - “Women 2000” (RC B5-0562/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for a pluralist assembly such as ours today is a great day, both because of the very well-produced report by Mr Laschet in which all types of suggestion have been accepted, and because of the presence of the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, in order to receive the Sakharov Prize, which represents a strengthening of International Law as the only way to resolve conflicts internationally. Our group does not have an homogeneous opinion on the report by Mr Laschet – although I recognise that the contributions made have been accepted – since our positions range from favourable to sceptical, as befits a pluralist group. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that we attach great importance to this report, as well as to the contributions made by the Commission to improving the international panorama, and we are clearly in favour of multilateralism – as I have said previously – although we believe that the situation puts excessive emphasis on anti-terrorist aspects and does not give sufficient emphasis to better international cooperation aimed at eliminating the causes of inequality and injustice, such as the democratic control by the UN of agencies such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank which, at the end of the day, are the bodies which can create greater justice in the world. That is why, in view of the need to improve relations between the European Union and the UN, which is key to creating a panorama in which there is respect for human rights and international legislation, we believe we should have gone a little further in terms of improving the conditions for greater justice in the world. That is why our position on Mr Laschet’s report is going to be divided into several different positions.

Political group: GUE-NGL