GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Who would have believed it? More than twenty-five years after the first debate on chocolate in the European Parliament and I am again involved in a discussion on the big question of whether a product can be called chocolate when it is not made exclusively from cocoa butter. Today, as twenty-five years ago, this question has divided this House to the point that my Group did not produce a voting list and group discipline could not be imposed, which I love in such a case. I can therefore freely come out in favour of the solution which seems best to me for the producers of real chocolate, as appreciated by the gourmets who believe in calling a spade a spade and calling chocolate chocolate, provided that it is actually made with cocoa butter. I deeply regret that we could not agree on the solution which seemed to me to be the most sensible which was that the name ‘chocolate’ should be reserved for products containing 100% of vegetable fats originating from cocoa and that the presence of other fats should be clearly indicated in the packaging of products containing these. In this way the consumer could be informed and not led astray, given of course that the marketing of these products in the single market would be guaranteed. In terms of chocolate, as in other areas, different cultures and traditions exist. Everyone has different tastes. In addition to the ‘product quality and taste’ aspect there is, of course, the ‘development policy’ aspect. The ACP countries fear losses of income in the region of 160 million dollars if our large industrial chocolate producers use up to 5% of other vegetable fats, with this percentage being the recommended figure but not actually being verifiable. The situation being as it is, I would have preferred the common position to be rejected in the same way that I prefer good handmade chocolate to an industrial product which is currently unverifiable. Unfortunately, a small majority in this House has failed to ensure that consumers can enjoy real chocolate.

Political group: PPE-DE
I take it from the Commissioner’s answer that he is in favour of regulating the arms trade. What is his response to the brokering of arms which is still going on? Recently arms travelled from Russia via Antwerp to the war in Eritrea. Would he like to see a tightening up of the regulations to ensure that kind of gun-running cannot occur?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, first let me thank the rapporteur, on behalf also of my political group, for this report and for the strategy she proposes, namely to accept this common position as it stands. We found this strategy convincing and we too can recommend that the plenary of the House adopt the Council’s common position on the e-commerce directive unamended. We do so primarily because we believe that this key component of the European legal framework for the information society needs to be implemented swiftly. Let me emphasise that another reason why we are able to adopt it unamended is because the Council – exceptionally, I am tempted to say – has incorporated many of the European Parliament’s amendments at first reading. That does not mean, however, that we do not still see much room for improvement, as other speakers have pointed out as well, and some of our wishes have not been fulfilled. But if we are prepared to set these wishes aside for now, for the sake of the speedy adoption and implementation of this directive, we also expect the Member States, when they implement it, with appropriate monitoring by the Commission, to resolve all the questions that are still not one hundred percent settled without this being at the expense of aspects that are important to us, in particular consumer protection. Here I am thinking above all of the interpretation of Article 1(3), which is still worded in a very ambivalent way. I hope that article will not be used to undermine national provisions on health protection, such as the ban on the mail order sales of certain medicines. I think we are also entitled to expect that the proposed codes of conduct, which will give those involved in e-commerce a very wide margin for self-regulation, will be drawn up as soon as possible and that they will be very comprehensive, with the participation of consumer protection organisations, in such a manner as to be really binding and easy to implement. I think we can also describe the rules that we adopted on provider liability as generous. I can only hope that they stand the test of time and that we will not have to revise them again in three years’ time in light of practical experience. The adoption of the e-commerce directive does represent a very, very important step, yet a few other key building blocks for the e-Europe are still missing. As the rapporteur pointed out, the Council is dragging its feet on the common position on the distance marketing of financial services, on copyright in the information society. We also need to make more rapid progress in setting up out-of-court settlement procedures and the small claims procedure. Finally, I hope that the directive we are to adopt will also serve as a good stepping-stone towards finding equally good global solutions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I can imagine that a number of MEPs who were against this directive at the time are now satisfied with it. I think that congratulations are in order for Mr Lechner. It is fortunate that the directive which we voted on yesterday is so different in nature that we really do not need to expect a similar kind of judgement from the Advocate-General or from the Court. Yesterday’s directive is based on three existing directives, two of which have already been before the Court. I am therefore completely satisfied with the vote as it was held yesterday. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, your speeches have naturally struck home with me as well, especially the idea that we are now on the road to enlarging European rule of law to include more countries. As a result, European peace can ensue in States that know their responsibilities. A ‘European-style’ peace. I also have a great deal of faith in the policy of the Commissioner during the negotiations. I support his underlying principles. I also welcome the fact that he keeps the pressure on until the last minute, until October, and that it is not a foregone conclusion that ten countries will be joining. Their accession remains conditional. I should like to ask a specific question concerning the costs that enlargement entails. A few other MEPs have already mentioned this topic, and we have also discussed it with the Commissioner within the framework of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy. Regarding the costs of enlargement, I believe the Commissioner completely when he states in this respect that these will, in fact, not exceed our set budget. We have cut costs to ensure that enlargement becomes possible within the budget. Despite this, we hear all kinds of conflicting stories in the various Member States, depending on whether it is in their interest to turn this into an issue. A moment ago, I heard Italy being mentioned. I also have to include my own country, my own government, which states that the additional costs could be enormous. The Secretary of State for European Affairs made a cryptic statement that this could well cost the Netherlands anything between 0 to 1 billion. This proves that a) he has a conscience and b) he is also a campaign leader. Commissioner, I think it would be extremely useful if another authoritative analysis were issued of these calculations which are being drafted in the Member States and which give a completely different picture from that of the Commission. Surely this can be done independently, and I also think it is important for our people to be able to distinguish between the truth and accuracy on the one hand and unfounded nightmares on the other. Added to this, of course, is the fact that we have created our own problems by not reforming our own agricultural policy in time. We have simply not done our homework, but have saddled those other countries with these tasks instead – which they are implementing – and we complain in the meantime. Mr President, I have to say that I am also delighted with the statements made by the Commissioner with regard to the Beneš Decrees. We are all very busy working on them, and I have also noticed that in the Netherlands, associations, for example, are reporting claims in connection with Poland, among others. I would very much appreciate it if the Commission and the Council were to clarify which claims, with a reference to Copenhagen, would be viable and which would not be. In my view, clarity in this connection is crucial in order to keep our population in the positive frame of mind with regard to enlargement.

Political group: PPE-DE
UK Conservatives are broadly happy with the original Lambert Report, which in its initial form usefully cleaned up some technical matters. Specifically however, we have voted against Amendments Nos 8 onwards. These amendments would significantly have extended the material scope of the Regulation: this should not be the role of miscellaneous amendments. It should be specifically noted that supplementary pensions are NOT State-provided social security payments, and cannot therefore come within the scope of Regulation 1408/71. Similarly, one amendment attempts to extend the scope of the regulation to taxation: this is simply not acceptable. UK Conservative MEPs will continue to resist any amendments to any report at any time which attempt to make similar encroachments into Member State competences. - Free movement of persons

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is high time that we resolved this complex and long-standing issue once and for all. As we all know, there are many competing claims – the claims of ACP banana producers, Community banana producers, EU businesses which have been hit hard by US sanctions, the EU's role and standing in the WTO and, of course, the rights and interests of European banana consumers. It will not be possible to satisfy fully all these claims and therefore we have to accept a compromise. The Commission's proposal is a compromise between those who demand an immediate move to a tariff only system and those who wish to ignore the WTO rulings and stick with the flawed regime as it is. That is why the majority of the Group supports the Commission's proposal to continue a tariff-rate quota system for a transitional period before moving to a definitive tariff only system. The Dary report, on the other hand, is premised on the somewhat unrealistic notion that we can ignore rulings from the WTO altogether. It gives complete priority to the concerns of EU banana producers over the equally legitimate concerns of innocent EU businesses in other sectors suffering from arbitrary US sanctions. Most strange of all, it risks complicating matters so much further that the Commission, as stated in its proposal of November last year, will be obliged to move directly to a tariff only system. This would be exactly the opposite of the objectives of those who support this report. I have also heard that during the vote, which will take place either today or tomorrow, some may advocate referral back to committee. This would be an undignified act of foot-dragging which would do nothing to address the long-term issues at stake. We need stability for European and ACP banana producers and EU consumers. That can be done by rejecting this report and supporting the Commission's compromise proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this excellent report, Mrs Smet, whom I congratulate on her magnificent work, highlights the insufficient participation of women among the social partners in the European Union and the consequences of this for the implementation of equal opportunities policy. In order to remedy the glaringly obvious shortfall in the representation of women in the decision-making structures and bodies of the social partners, three measures, in particular, are to be emphasised. First: we need to know where we are now and where we want to be. Hence the need to ensure that we have statistics that give us a true picture of the situation and which can provide a basis for the creation of action programmes and the drafting of evaluation reports; Second: knowledge and training are the keys to individual and collective progress. The preparation of women for leadership duties must, therefore, be a priority. This aim can best be achieved through the creation of centres for the dissemination of specialist knowledge. Third: the social partners must provide training actions to raise awareness of equal opportunities and this issue must always feature on the negotiating agenda. In my country, for example, the rate of women in employment has been steadily increasing and is one of the highest in the European Union. Nevertheless, such changes are not matched by the level of women’s participation in the decision-making processes and many inequalities still persist. With regard to access to executive positions, only 2% of women occupy the posts of departmental heads and managers, which rises to 3.2% at more senior levels. We are also seeing the insufficient participation of women in positions of greater responsibility in union life. Reliable data are difficult to come by, as has already been stated here several times. Lastly, I wish to remind you that various studies confirm that the presence of women in decision-making bodies and in collective bargaining has a very positive impact on the implementation of equal opportunities policy. Therefore, the balanced representation of men and women, apart from being a democratic imperative for the social partners, will lead to a more favourable working and organisational environment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as North Korean dictator, Kim Jong–Il sips his specially imported French brandy and savours his freshly cooked pizzas cooked by two Italian chefs, as he mulls over what he will say to the UN envoy, many thousands of his oppressed subjects, including babies, are literally starving to death as his disastrous Stalinist economic policies have brought the country to its knees. Even worse is that many of his people are rotting as political prisoners in re–education camps where they are being tortured and beaten. The country outrageously styles itself 'the Democratic People's Republic of Korea', and yet the people have never been consulted, as Mr Kim inherited his mandate from his late dictator father. Not only has that country, which is a brutal, secretive, communist dictatorship, repeatedly violated international agreements such as the 1994 one to end its bomb–making uranium enrichment programme, it has also in the past violated every standard of civilised behaviour, from kidnapping Japanese civilians – which the government justified, almost unbelievably, on the grounds of needing language instructors for its spies – to engaging in political assassinations such as blowing up the South Korean cabinet in Rangoon a few years ago. It was also responsible for blowing up a South Korean airliner. More recently – and this is the reason for my motion for resolution – it has starved many thousands of its people to death due to its disastrous isolationist economic policies and the fact that it has chosen to maintain one million men under arms with an immoral diversion of food and resources to the military, irrespective of the deprivation suffered by its civilian population. It remains a failing and rogue state and a very dangerous one at that. It could wreak havoc on South Korea with which it technically remains at war. Consequently, the EU must tread carefully and concentrate on delivering humanitarian aid to its long–suffering people. Nevertheless, aid donors must still insist on verification procedures to ensure that the food gets through to those it is intended for and is not given to the army or, worse still, resold to raise cash for more armaments or luxuries for its political and military elite.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is with mixed feelings of regret and satisfaction that I begin this evening’s debate on the creation of a European Union Solidarity Fund. I feel regret that we were not listened to following the disastrous storms of December 1999, the effects of which are still felt in many regions of France and Europe. I feel satisfaction, which is of course tempered by the tragic events in Germany and Central Europe, that the European Union has finally conceded that it must be seen to stand by our fellow citizens in times of difficulty and in the physical and material tragedies that affect them. I would particularly like to congratulate Commissioner Barnier and his department, as well as Mr Berend, for the exceptional resourcefulness that they have shown in preparing this dossier. I believe that this report is a credit to both the Commission and Parliament, and the European Union as a whole, both because of the speed with which it has been produced and because of its balanced approach, its recognition of the exceptional nature of disasters, and the prominence it gives to urgency, flexibility and adaptability. Nonetheless, disasters can be tragic or perceived to be so regardless of their extent, and I believe that this evening, since we are finally putting in place a mechanism that we can call upon when major events take place, we must also consider our presence when smaller-scale troubles, tragedies or natural disasters occur. No death can be classified as more or less important than any other, in the same way that no ruin can be classified as major or insignificant. That is why I shall, once again – and I would like to thank Commissioner Barnier for mentioning this – call for the creation of a European body for civil security. It does not have to be created from scratch and would allow us to establish and dispatch to the regions in difficulty civil rescue forces wearing the colours of the Union who will thus display our solidarity with the citizens in times of misfortune.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what good are our resolutions, conventions, treaties and rights for the protection of our cultural heritage, the slogan ‘women’s rights are human rights’, when a group of people blindly destroys cultural heritage in the name of an extremist religion, when women are forced day in day out to deny themselves, to hide behind heavy robes with a mesh covering in front of their eyes? Women who almost float along, who are kept apart by curtains on public transport, who are obliged to give up their jobs ... time and time again they are kept apart, and time and time again they are humiliated, abused and sold short. This is why people are actually forced to move home, to emigrate in the face of the inhuman conditions prevailing in Afghanistan. What must be done to get the Taliban to reconsider? In practical terms it is too late for many statues. That is a very tragic fact and in my view it is to be greatly welcomed that the international community protested against this iconoclastic fury of 2001. This protest came not only from the West or from the Dalai Lama, but also from their own fellow-Muslims, who realised that this was a matter of cultural heritage and not purely religious symbols. The protest was vociferous. It is to be welcomed that at the same time the discriminatory and inhuman treatment of women in Afghanistan is receiving the attention it has long deserved: there should be worldwide protest against this too. This regime discriminates not only against its own women: the local correspondent of the BBC, herself a woman, has just been deported. Her criticism of the iconoclasm was too stinging and so the press bureau, which had existed since 1950, had to close. I am not very optimistic, not to say pessimistic about the Taliban heeding these resolutions. Hopefully no one will take it into his head to support them financially or by supplying weapons. It just shows you what can happen when dogma becomes law. It is to be welcomed that we, as the European Parliament, are responding. The Group of the fully supports this resolution. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am all in favour, as the report says, of democratising the whole decision-making process in connection with the management of the Internet. It is an important point but, unlike many of you, I am less concerned with EU location nationalism and more concerned with who can actually use Internet technology. It is a new technology and it is only a good new technology if a lot of people can use it. The digital divide mainly runs between north and south and this is a huge problem because in the south hardly anyone has access to the Internet. This is why I think it is important for the EU to make a commitment to limit the north/south digital divide, for us perhaps to launch a programme for the purpose and, above all, for us to invest in public access, for example in schools and libraries. Only then will as many people as possible be able to use the Internet in the south and only then shall we reach the point at which people can obtain information on their own initiative and develop their talents freely and without censorship, including on the Internet.

Political group: Verts-ALE