GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world's greatest exporter of goods and services and the world's biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald's in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we found it very difficult indeed to put forward this proposal, especially as we are always keen to cooperate, also with Mrs Hautala, as far as politically possible. However, we wanted to have enough time for the debate on Gothenburg, which is why we have proposed that the Wuori report be postponed until the mini-session. This is therefore not a substantive objection; it is simply a matter of having more time to prepare the important Summit in Gothenburg.

Political group: PPE-DE
We agree with several points in the report at debate. For reasons of principle, we agree with the need to safeguard the right of cultural self-determination and the cultural diversity of the peoples of Europe and the whole world. The report partially formulates correctly certain of the causes of gradual cultural homogenisation and the commercialisation of culture (pressure from the WTO, internal rivalries both between the USA and the EU and within the ΕU itself, inability of UNESCO to play its role etc.). Because we firmly believe in cultural diversity, as one of the last bastions defending the historic existence and continuing identity of peoples and as an historic necessity (as the report also recognises), we consider the proposed measures to be completely inadequate. The problem cannot be resolved within the framework of organisations such as UNESCO or the Council of Europe, let alone the ΕU. The only way to check and reverse this preplanned and culturally catastrophic advance is for the peoples to take the matter into their own hands, to fight against the logic and practices of the laws of the market dictated by imperialist globalisation and to demand respect for the values of their culture. For these reasons, the Communist Party of Greece did not support the report and abstained from the final vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there is an expression in my language ‘to take French leave,’ which is what the President-in-Office has done, leaving without saying goodbye. Therefore, my first words should be to thank Mr Prodi, who has stayed. The Commission is showing that it is interested in the debate in this Parliament. As far as the Treaty of Nice is concerned, we can say very little, because we do not yet have the conclusions of the European Council, and therefore, until we see them, we cannot add much. I think there are two matters in which the European Parliament plays an important role. The first is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter has been proclaimed and that is a good thing. But it has neither been incorporated into the Treaties, nor has a reference to the Charter been put in Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. And, above all, I have the feeling that the proclamation was not a solemn one. It was a proclamation on the quiet. I would therefore like to thank our President, Mrs Fontaine, and President Prodi for what they have said: for the European Parliament and the Commission, the Charter is law from now onwards, and it is going to have an effect from now onwards. I think that this is positive. The other point from Nice on which Parliament will judge Nice is the extension of qualified majority voting and Parliament’s codecision. On this subject – from what I have been able to hear here this morning – the news is vague and does not seem to be very promising. We will have to wait before we can establish what Parliament’s opinion is. I remember that when Dimitris Tsatsos and I drew up the report on the Treaty of Amsterdam, we talked about Ortega y Gasset, who said, quoting old Cervantes, that often you have to choose between staying at an inn or continuing with the journey. Nice is the road to two important things, one of which is enlargement. Enlargement is going to take place – now we know it. This is also the case for the euro. I think that a colla at Nice would have been a punch below the belt for the euro. Therefore, perhaps in this Parliament we are in a paradoxical situation that is completely different to Amsterdam. Perhaps, for this Parliament the European Council of Nice has not been positive, as it was in Amsterdam. But perhaps, for the European Union, the European Council of Nice is opening up the way for hope and for the future. We will see, Mr President, when we read the conclusions. Until then, the Group of the European People’s Party reserves judgement on what its position will be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lemierre, may I begin by congratulating Mr Markov on a sterling report. The EBRD has been, and will be, of great importance to the development of former Communist Europe. For many of the countries, the door is now open to membership of the EU. This is obviously the best way for them to secure a better social and economic future. There are, however, still many countries that are, and will be, outside the EU’s internal market. If the gulfs between countries and peoples are not to increase further, the EBRD’s efforts are perhaps needed now more than ever. It is not easy to transform Communist planned economies that have sucked the life out of societies and people and introduce a market economy philosophy. We can now see the huge costs for the former GDR. I am particularly pleased that the Markov report emphasises free competition and the opportunities provided by the market and highlights, for example, the great importance of small companies to an affluent society. We Liberals have especially wanted to emphasise a matter also addressed by Mr Purvis, to the effect that the EBRD must step up its efforts in the EU’s new border countries, for example in Moldova and Ukraine. Obviously, this must also be done in Russia where the trend is, in spite of everything, in the right direction. That the former Soviet empire and its inhabitants should acquire a more secure economic foundation is, of course, of the greatest interest to us within the EU in terms of economics, security policy and also straightforward politics. That is apparent from an interesting article in today’s Financial Times, quoting Mr Lemierre. We also proposed more emphasis on projects that support democratic development. When it comes to Belarus, which is perhaps the worst remnant of the old Soviet period and which is without democracy, the EBRD should seek cooperation partners within non-governmental organisations. Human rights must always be guaranteed. It is therefore good that the EBRD should freeze assets and investments when human rights are threatened. Mr Purvis mentioned the Balkans and Serbia. There too, I believe that the EBRD’s efforts are especially important in a situation in which democracy is very shaky and needs support. I also believe it is important to emphasise that the EBRD should be managed in a professional and efficient way. The way in which it is organised must therefore be continually monitored, and unnecessary and costly bureaucracy prevented. We in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party support Amendments Nos 2 and 4, just as Mr Purvis does, but also parts of Amendment No 5. I want to conclude by saying that a number of the amendments concern the development of nuclear power. This is, in my opinion, a source of energy that is clean and reduces the increasing greenhouse effect. It reduces the risks of climate change if it is safe and properly managed. I wonder therefore what the have against it.

Political group: ELDR
At this time when we are voting on a joint resolution against the inclusion of neo-Nazis in the government of a European Union Member State, I must express my regrets regarding a compromise text which is particularly lacking in backbone. I am voting in favour of it because it is inconceivable that the European Parliament, after its excellent political debate yesterday, should not adopt a stance on this matter. Personally, however, I shall continue to fight against the extreme right, to urge people to sign a petition to demand measures which may go as far as the exclusion of Austria, and to organise a major public demonstration in Lille on Saturday at 3 p.m. Fascism and neo-Nazism are cancers! The foul monster has been reawakened! For me there is no question of allowing them to develop and to flourish without fighting with all our might. Europe was born out of a desire for peace, freedom and tolerance. There is no question of it allowing xenophobic, racist and anti-Semitic ministers to be tolerated at within it. Do not count on me to keep quiet, without doing or saying anything.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Mr President-in-Office. What you said is positive and demonstrates sensitivity on the part of the Council. I would repeat that this is a hostage issue. The ship's cook cannot be held for an accident caused by the ship, at the pilots' responsibility of course, which resulted in pollution. Nor can the seaman who swabs the decks. Nor can the salvage company manager. In this sense, I should like to ask the Minister to take démarches, until the Italian Presidency's dying breath, if I may put it thus, on a major humanitarian issue involving European citizens. In other words, so that these people can spend Christmas and the New Year at home. In other words, would it be prepared to intervene with the Pakistani Government at a very high level, at the level of Prime Minister and President-in-Office of the European Council or at the level of the Italian Foreign Minister? Once again, I thank the Italian Presidency.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I travelled with Mr Watts and others to Jenin yesterday. I have been in Palestine dozens of times since 1968 and have seen countless bombed Palestinian houses. I thought I was immune, but Jenin was worse than I had imagined. Mr Larsson is entirely right. Jenin can be called Palestine’s ground zero. Jenin can also be called a new Deir Yassin. It was of course there that Sharon’s political forefathers within Irgun murdered as many as 250 Palestinian civilians in April 1948, an act that was the signal for the mass flight of Palestinians that lies behind the whole problem. It was the intention on that occasion too to cause the Palestinians to flee, and there is a lot to be said for the view that that is also the intention on this occasion. The aim is to try to frighten the Palestinians into moving and to force them to flee. Those who still remain are to be put in prison. Last Sunday, the New York Times reported that a Berlin Wall is to be built around the whole of the West Bank. This is not to be a wall between Israel and Palestine, but a wall around the whole of the West Bank so that the whole area becomes one large concentration camp. When we were there the other night, 12 Palestinians were evicted from 12 flats in the middle of the city. According to the newspaper Ha’aretz, this is a phase in the strategy of surrounding the Old Town with Jewish outposts. The Jerusalem Post says of Knesset member Ben Elon that ‘he promises Jewish continuity in Jerusalem’. If we were to exchange the word ‘Jewish’ for ‘white’, ‘Swedish’, ‘Christian’ or any other ethnic or national designation, everyone would shout ‘racism!’. Why are Mr Patten and Mr Pique I Camps so incredibly cautious? Certainly, they said a lot of good things, but why not look the truth in the eye and realise that the Israeli policy of occupation is the same kind of policy which eventually led to the boycotting of South Africa. It is the same kind of policy that finally led to the intervention in Kosovo to rescue the Kosovan Albanians. Israel must therefore be treated in the same way as we treated Milosevic’s Serbia and apartheid in South Africa. The Sharon regime must be isolated. Happily, there are many who realise this. One hundred and twenty researchers have published a letter in the Guardian, demanding that Israel be barred from cooperating on research with the EU. The Swedish and British Medical Associations have proposed that the Israeli Medical Association be excluded from the World Medical Association, and the football organisation FIFA is to adopt a position on Israel’s exclusion at the beginning of May. In South Africa, the Jewish minister Mr Kasrils is demanding a boycott of Israel. It really is high time that we in the EU took a fairly tough line and at least fulfilled the pretty mild demand made by the European Parliament, namely that we suspend the Association Agreement with Israel. The least that can be asked is that the Council and the Commission ensure that the demand is carried out in practice.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on behalf of the Socialists in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should like to make a few brief comments. The Commission has the merit of overcoming inactivity and contributing to a political solution. Parliament wants effective and coherent action for the sector. We know that the cause of accidents, which are becoming more numerous and more serious despite the technology now available, lies in the competitive madness in shipbuilding, leading to declining quality, and the absurd economic management of ageing fleets, which hinges on a strategy of drastic cuts in maintenance and crews. Accidents are not just caused by the age and type of the vessel; they also occur because of the unscrupulousness of ship owners and operators who make use of every possible method to cut costs. Some of these have been repeatedly mentioned here, from flags of convenience to the permissiveness of port authorities and the complicity of classification societies. The problem of safety for this form of transport requires offenders to be penalised rigorously; imposing such penalties entails costs that must be shared by the whole sector worldwide, so that we do not penalise the European sector even more. We agree with imposing a lower limit for personal injury or death and material damage, leaving the Member States free to raise these limits. We disagree with the idea according to which the fitness of classification societies depends on their size or even the number of inspectors on their staff, and prefer to be guided by the consequences of their certification, and therefore the system of civil liability compatible with the risk is necessary. Allow me to make a comment on Portugal, which has been mentioned here. Portugal supported the changes to Directive 94/54 but disagrees with the abolition of classification societies by smaller countries. Classification society performance must be assessed by common criteria: number of accidents, incidents or detentions of inspected and certified ships that cause pollution. It is unrealistic to expect the number of accidents to fall without international coordination channelled through a political and entrepreneurial commitment that creates a new operational mentality.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. – Mr President, the main concern of the Committee on Development and Cooperation in relation to this agreement is to make sure that its impact is in keeping with the wider development goals of the Union. We are very keen to ensure that development policy is not ghettoised into one little bit of the Commission, and that its objectives are mainstreamed right across EU policies when we are dealing with the developing world. What does this mean in concrete terms in relation to this agreement? It means we want to see real benefits for the local communities and assurances that this agreement will not have negative impacts on the local populations that depend on fisheries. We want the Commission to maximise local employment opportunities arising from the agreement, looking at access for fishermen to the tuna fishing business. We are keen to see women be given a role in the marketing and processing of fisheries products. Stock management issues are also important. We want the Commission to make sure that the agreement takes full account of the sustainable management of fisheries resources, particularly with regard to tuna stocks. The emphasis should be on decentralised production using low-cost, sustainable farming methods. Like Mr Stevenson we welcome the Commission's proposals to allocate the financial compensation to measures which promote institutional development, marine surveillance, research, training and quality control. This is a good step in the right direction because it is important that the money also goes into furthering our development goals. Finally, I agree with all those who are saying that it is extremely important that the Parliament be kept informed of the implementation of this agreement. We need regular assessments on what is happening on the ground before we can agree to any renewal of the agreement.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will start with an individual case. After spending 18 years in prison for crimes of opinion, the lawyer, Riad al-Turk, was released in 1998. In recent months, he has been imprisoned anew, also for crimes of opinion. The trial is in progress and the defendant is in danger of being sentenced to 15 years. All this is happening in Syria, where, despite the hopes of renewal raised by the new president, Bashir al-Assad, I regret to say that there has been absolutely no increase in consideration for freedoms. Let me tell you about Riad al-Turk, a political opposition leader who has paid an extremely high price for defending his ideals. The lawyer, now an elderly man in poor health – and we can imagine what it means to spend 20 years in prison in that country – has suffered a deterioration of his health in recent months, since he was arrested again. He is not a familiar face in the West, for he has never tried to claim that his is a special case. He has displayed great dignity throughout his life and he was not even allowed books in prison. In order not to lose all sense of time and reality, he tried to survive and to preserve his concentration by drawing with small stones that he found in his cell. Among those in prison with him are two members of the Syrian parliament, who are being detained on the same charge. These are their crimes: taking part in political meetings not authorised by the regime. We are scrutinising a key country in the region with interest and we hope that the association agreement being negotiated by the Commission will be concluded. Clearly, however, respect for human rights is an essential condition of these agreements. We therefore expect the European Commission’s negotiators to take a firm stand on the case of the elderly lawyer, Riad al-Turk, as well. It is impossible to put this matter down to cultural diversity: these are basic conditions which a State founded on the rule of law must respect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on the Brok report, I remain sceptical of the need to formally institute a CFSP or an ESDP. I prefer to retain a national foreign policy and work through NATO. Recent events over Iraq have questioned the viability of the CFSP. Nevertheless, I engage constructively with the EU reality, and I recognise the positive role Javier Solana has played, through the Quartet in the Middle East, in promoting long-term peace between Israel and Palestine. I also particularly support the role of Russia as our strategic partner. Nevertheless, I support the High Representative's role as an intergovernmental envoy and do not want these vital areas made Community-based. Furthermore, I support US aims to rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. I was responsible for the amendment raising the serious issue of organised crime in the Balkans. A great advantage of EU enlargement in the long run is the inclusion of a country such as, for example, Ukraine, whose aspirations to join the EU the Commission is, sadly, ignoring. Enlargement will bind these countries to the West, encourage economic prosperity and make a much more coordinated fight against crime and illegal immigration possible when organisations such as Europol have a formal mandate. Another of my interests is India, which is clearly amongst several potential great powers that are in the midst of internal transition. With economic liberalisation, India offers a growing market for EU businesses. A multicultural secular democracy in an otherwise troubled region, it is a source of stability with a no-first-use nuclear policy. It is a bulwark against the rise of extremism, in particular regional Islamist tendencies such as those evidenced by recent attacks on Christian and western targets in Pakistan. These demonstrate an unchecked rise of religious fanaticism in that country, despite President Musharraf's rhetoric. Tragically, only yesterday 34 Hindus were killed by an Islamic terrorist bomb attack on a Hindu temple in Gujarat. I do not share all the Brok report's objectives, but I remain an interested observer of this revolutionary change from the city state of some 2 000 years ago, to the 19th-century nation-state, and to the EU Member State that we are witnessing today.

Political group: PPE-DE