GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, behaviour which is apparently irrational usually has an explanation. President Bush's decision to impose steel tariffs is irrational. The tariffs are a flagrant breach of world trade rules. There has been no sudden calamitous increase in imports. US steel has been uncompetitive and in deep trouble over a long period; it has not become so suddenly. Tariffs will not solve the US steel problem, but they will badly harm America's allies. They will destroy American jobs in other sectors and they will damage world trade relations. Knowing all this, why would President Bush take this irrational decision? We know why. He wants to buy votes in steel-producing areas come November and is so desperate to do so that he will gladly sacrifice his international credibility – and we in the EU and others elsewhere in the world are meant to pay the price! Talk about collateral damage! Of course, this cannot be tolerated. We do not subsidise steel, we do not dump steel. We went through terrible times to make our steel competitive. Our market is open. There is no possible justification for this deliberate attack on the livelihood of European steel workers. Remember, this is the President who thinks he can provide world leadership. Global leader in military power he may be, but he is a global dunce in citizenship and respect for others. Commission: take him on. You have all of us behind you and you have the tools to ensure that you can act both legally and effectively. Go for it!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are two people here today who deserve special congratulations, one being Anna Lancker, for her outstanding report, and the other being Anna Diamantopoulou, for her outstanding submission. It is an ambitious agenda, and I still have a clear recollection of the painfully slow progress that was made during the last legislative period in the sphere of social protection. The Council was not even prepared to discuss the matter at the time. What is clearly new is that we have adopted an employment policy, based on the Lisbon Decisions, indeed an employment policy that should be of a qualitative nature. We do not want over-regulation – and I say this to the British delegate who spoke before – but the diversity of modern contracts of employment requires new forms of social protection, and not the rules of the nineteenth century. We also stand to gain a great deal from having a constructive and effective policy mix between economic and financial policy, and, not least, from developing the social economy and the services sector. What is not so new, and the subject of repeated demands, is lifelong learning – which is something even the smallest Member States have done something about – as are the long overdue reforms to the European factory committee law, the legal protection of nursing and expectant mothers, and freedom of movement. I would like to raise a criticism in connection with the lack of initiatives produced in response to the new challenges we face in health and safety at work, employee participation and labour relations. Of course, I was delighted to see the French Presidency show such commitment to the issues of childcare, family and women’s policy. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that all three people responsible – in the Commission, Parliament and the Council – are women. But what we need now, in tandem with this, are instruments that allow for the involvement of fathers. That would be a new departure. Besides, this agenda should send out a signal to the candidate countries, and I therefore wish it every success.

Political group: PSE
It is true that we cannot possibly give shelter to the entire world and that we cannot solve the problems of the world by sending everyone this way. But it is also a misconception to think that we can keep Fort Europe closed to people who have to, or want to, leave the world outside Europe. It appears that those people are willing to part with a great deal of money and take huge risks to enter Europe. We will only change this if we help improve the world outside of Europe, for example by not dragging cheap raw materials and semi-finished products from those regions and by not doing business with oppressive regimes. Imposing minimum fines undermines the autonomy of the Member States in terms of their criminal law, and the prescribed increase from EUR 3 000 to 5 000 only makes matters worse. The Kirkhope proposal will only lead to more illegal migration and to higher profits for the mafia. That is what you get when you punish idealistic helpers and cut off legal access options. As I already said on 15 February in the context of the Ceyhun report on illegal entry, it is crazy to penalise the solidarity of action groups and churches with political refugees and war victims.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as a Member from one of the outermost regions, I must point out that this is a very special afternoon as far as regional policy is concerned, because of the debate on two Community initiatives, URBAN and INTERREG. I would like to remind you that these initiatives are aimed, firstly, in the case of URBAN, at improving the quality of life of the citizens who live in the poorer parts of various European cities, and, in the case of INTERREG, at facilitating cohesion and recognising the diversity and potential of the regions of the European Union, particularly by including the outermost regions in strands B and C. Like the rapporteur, we deplore the fact that it has been excluded from strand IIIA. With regard to INTERREG, we are very happy that there is a reference to the creation of a European monitoring centre concerned with cooperation. I would like to thank the rapporteurs, particularly Mr Decourrière, for his sensitivity towards the regions and for accepting our amendments. I hope that the Commissioner will accept the proposal which we are making.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, whilst I naturally sympathise with the position of Austria and the Austrian MEPs, I consider the free movement of persons and goods one of the European Union’s most important achievements. Upon accepting membership, Austria obtained a derogation which was due to lapse on 31 December of this year. By way of exception to the derogation, the Council and Parliament agreed in the conciliation meeting to extend the arrangement until the end of 2006. Against the background of the principle of free movement, this is not a wise decision. However, given the circumstances in Austria, I consider it to be an acceptable compromise between the principle of free movement and the protection of environmental interests. Indeed, I support the idea that there should always be room for sustainable transport. During the most recent conciliation meeting, Austria’s Transport Minister dampened my delight at the agreement. I consider refusing to carry out a freshly taken democratic decision to be wrong. Meanwhile, judging from the press reports with regard to last weekend’s European Council, this emotional statement appears to have become the Austrian Government’s position. Although I urge acceptance of the compromise that has been reached, I wonder what will be the implications of this decision, which is to be taken democratically. I should like to hear from the Commission in what way free transit through Austria can be guaranteed within the provisions of the agreement reached in the compromise on environmental pollution, if the Austrian Government chooses to ignore this agreement and assumes it can regulate the issue as it sees fit. Does the Commission see any scope for convincing the Austrian Government at this stage of the benefit of the agreement reached, one that, in any event, encourages the use of cleaner vehicles for transit?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what was it that Karl Marx said? “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Marxism-Leninism is in terminal decline, but other ideologies have survived. China is far from permitting freedom of expression, let alone freedom of religious observance, for Tibetans, Mongolians and members of Christian churches or Muslim communities. The Tibetans are persecuted. It is an offence to display pictures of the Dalai Lama. Those who stand up for their beliefs face the threat of lengthy prison sentences. I recall the initiative of the Tibet intergroup of the European Parliament to propose the nun Ngawang Sangdrol, who has spent the last nine years in prison, for this year’s Sakharov Prize. The eleven-year-old Panchen Lama, the second-highest authority in Tibetan Buddhism, has been abducted and has since been cut off from the outside world. He was not even allowed to meet with Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Group expects China, as a future WTO member and a global player, to assume its responsibility at long last and to ratify and implement the international agreements on civil and political rights as well as those on economic, social and cultural rights. We call on the EU Member States to take the opportunity presented by the meeting of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Put the obstruction of freedom of religion and the gross violations of human rights in China at the top of the agenda. And let us remember that, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, one of the few successes of the Nice Summit, the Member States enshrined freedom of religion, conscience, expression and information in the second chapter. I hope that our European Commission will show the same powers of initiative. Tashi delek!

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for the answer. I certainly absorbed the messages of Biarritz and I was encouraged by the things that occurred there. I would just ask Minister Moscovici two further questions. Firstly, would he agree that it would be more sensible to restrict the use of closer cooperation solely to those issues where unanimity applies within the Council? As he appreciates, this is a growing feeling within Parliament. And the second question concerns the reaction of the candidate countries to the debate inside the EU Union concerning closer cooperation. Do you find that they welcome the prospect or are they perhaps frightened of it?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, is it anachronistic, in the face of globalisation's many menacing effects and of increasing adverse developments in labour markets, for us to call on businesses to commit themselves to core labour standards? Given the direction the economy is increasingly taking, is it acceptable to demand social governance? We have to do both at the same time if we want to be able to carry the people with us – consumers, workers, and managers alike. The group, on behalf of which I speak, shares Mrs Gillig's basic thinking. We attach importance to uniform labour standards, non-discriminatory practices in employment and occupation, the abolition of forced labour, the recognition of the right to collective negotiation and to freedom of association. We do, however, prefer voluntary schemes in enterprises, provided that there is consistency in the way they are adhered to and assessed, and that they are unmistakably identifiable by means of a seal of approval. Standards certainly need to be developed for an international system of certification. It is our expectation that private initiatives and effective public quality control will represent an impressive contribution by the EU to giving core labour standards a proper place in the new global architecture. We need a two-stage policy if we are to achieve sustainable development. The ILO agreements must be ratified by all the EU Member States and by the candidate countries. I consider the idea of a joint meeting of the ILO and Parliament to be an initiative that is absolutely deserving of support. We will then need consensus on the order in which standards need to be achieved in the areas of social policy, commerce and the environment, and in social governance. Secondly, third countries also need to be prevailed upon to adopt ILO model agreements. This will hardly be achieved by means of an array of penalties, and an incentive system will work much better – for example, more financial aid for development or preferential access to markets if social kitemarks are gained through such things as a commitment not to permit child labour. It is for this reason that my group highlights the special role of employers' associations and trades unions in promoting core labour standards, which are so important.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are not going to oppose the creation of a monitoring centre for industrial change. The right’s unanimous opposition to it only confirms their rejection of the slightest transparency on the disastrous consequences for society of the factory closures and redundancies people have the nerve to present to us as inevitable responses to change. But this monitoring centre can only be a statistical instrument, and not even an objective one, in this class society. A monitoring centre cannot replace the political will to prevent big business sacking workers to make bigger profits. Calling for social cohesion amounts to asking workers made redundant by a firm which is closing down, and unemployed people who are victims of restructuring, to endure their fate patiently. Most of the mergers or restructurings are financial operations quite unrelated to industrial change. And it is always the workers who have to pay the price, never the shareholders. That is why I say to the workers that they can and must defend themselves, in particular by imposing a ban on redundancies on any company which is making profits. Accumulated profits should be used to finance the distribution of work amongst all, with no decrease in wages, no precariousness and no flexibility.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I wish to thank both my colleagues for their very creditable work in this area. I shall now just concentrate on the report by Mr Clegg. The topic he deals with is now extremely important because the Commission is for example calling for the swift implementation of the new European regulatory framework in all Member States. Mr Clegg quite rightly criticises Member States which, despite pressure from the Commission and the sector, have not done enough to adopt the new legislative package as part of their own legal system. If Europe wishes to create a genuine Internal Market for the telecommunications sector as well, it is particularly important that we ensure that harmonised legislation is implemented. We must keep to what we have decided. With circumstances as they are it is dangerous to start proposing measures to remedy the market situation before the telecommunications package has even been implemented. Given that eight Member States have not made the package part of their own legislation, it is nothing less than a scandal. Point 34 in Mr Clegg’s report is not the correct way to proceed in the situation as it is now, since in my view it conflicts with the Universal Service Directive. Can we have the operators pay for these reforms in the infrastructure? As a list of obligations and remedying actions has just been launched on the market it is sheer madness to confuse the issue by adding new public service obligations or imprecise notions regarding a monopoly, which are oddly combined with perhaps some quite interesting business concept, which is to say the European service number idea. The whole information and communications technology sector has to be regulated until the markets are fully competitive. That is only fair for everyone. Let, then, the new service concepts come about in a commercially competitive market where business developers skilled in their field will certainly do their work well. That is European innovation. Let us also do our work: let us enact laws that last.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the conflict which has brought bloodshed to the Great Lakes region for more than a year now appears to be reaching a favourable outcome. We are delighted at this of course, but much work remains to be done. On the one hand, the Lusaka Agreements must lead, in the short-term to a lasting and verifiable cease-fire. In this context, the rapid deployment of international observers is essential and even of paramount importance. The European Union must participate in this process alongside the United Nations and the OAU to verify the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country as well. Congo must cease to be a mere pawn, in order, once again, to play a genuine role in finding a fair and equitable solution for all parties involved in the conflict. On the other hand, it is necessary and even imperative that the Congolese resume dialogue among themselves. A debate on national reconciliation must involve civilian society, which is so vital in this country. Finally, and this is no doubt a more unusual path, the European Union could begin thinking about concluding a Stability Pact for Africa, modelled on the example of the Balkans. Member States who have a special historical relationship with this region must, to my mind, face up to their responsibilities. The whole of Africa is calling out to us. The recent death of two young Guineans in an aeroplane bound for Brussels, a tragic fate recalled by the President when she opened this part-session on Monday, is a cry of alarm which demands our attention, as European officials, and which must force us to act. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the opinion of the committee of which I have the honour to be draftsman, which was approved by a very large majority, introduces limitations to the rapid liberalisation of the postal services, opting for a gradual and controlled opening to competition without market distortions which would be detrimental to the services’ customers and users and to the national universal service companies. Thus, we propose that the opening should take into account Article 16 of the Treaty, which raises the provision of traditional postal services to the category of services of general interest, given the place they occupy in the shared values of the Union and their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion, for which reason they should operate on the basis of principles and conditions that enable them to fulfil their missions. Naturally, we point out weaknesses in the draft directive, requiring that the economic and social impact of liberalisation be made known and an assessment be made of the economic effectiveness and service quality provided by the companies so that Parliament can decide with certainty and clarity. Without jeopardising the modernisation of all postal services and the opening to competition, Member States must continue to preserve their rural network of counter services, which help bring the remote places closer to centres of decision making and are thus indispensable to the social cohesion of the smallest urban or rural communities. The Committee on Legal Affairs has been even more demanding as regards price limits on services reserved for the universal provider, but it proposes the same 150-gramme weight limit and jointly rejects the 50 grammes laid down in the draft directive. The difference from the basic report is a simple matter of detail included within the framework of a parliamentary discussion, which, incidentally, has been extremely well conducted by the rapporteur, Mr Ferber. It is also guaranteed that cross-border mail will remain a service reserved for the postal services, and also, if VAT comes to be levied on postal services, that the tax should be levied at a reduced rate so as not to raise the price of stamps in the Community. My committee has clearly rejected the idea of special services, which, as I understand it, were aimed at draining the universal service of any profitable activities, leaving it only with services where costs outweighed prices, and it also made subject to liberalisation the so-called new services, defined as “all those that the universal service provider does not undertake or is not naturally obliged to produce”. Madam President, there would be much more to say, but I shall confine myself to adding that only rarely has there been such political consensus on an issue among the various committees called upon to express their opinions in this Parliament. Postal services, like schools, roads, and bridges, are part of the European cultural landscape and our shared concept of civilisation. This Parliament is naturally on the side of these values and will continue to support them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, together with the Group of the , the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities and the Union for a Europe of Nations Group, I voted in favour of all parts of the resolution from the Group of the European People’s Party and . I am extremely pleased about the decision taken. At the same time, I am concerned about the narrow majority by which the resolution was adopted: 237 votes in favour, 230 votes against and 43 abstentions. I presented a text concerning the unique, equal and inviolable dignity of human life when the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was adopted almost unanimously by this Parliament, was referred to us for consideration. It is important that we be guided by the view of human life which has characterised this Europe of ours for more than a thousand years. Civilisation and humanity show their character most clearly in the way in which they treat life when it is defenceless. We must say no to the cloning of human beings. Human beings are subjects, not objects.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, in my view, our debate today concerns a highly sensitive issue: the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Both are on the increase. For this reason, we must engage in closer cross-border cooperation, work far more intensively to prevent such crimes through information and awareness-raising, and try to include society in this process to a greater extent. Of course, it is also important to amend our criminal law and ensure that it functions on a cross-border basis, as trafficking, abuse and child pornography operate across borders as well. We believe that various measures are necessary for this purpose. The penalty, that is, the term of imprisonment, should be increased from a minimum of eight to a minimum of 10 years, with stiffer penalties being imposed when the victim is under 16, rather than under 10. I cannot understand what is meant by the reference to child abuse involving ‘particular ruthlessness’. Any form of child abuse is ruthless! There is no such thing as 'mild' child abuse. Anything that happens to a child in this context is ruthless. That is why I believe that the age limit should be raised to a minimum of 16, as the harm suffered by children is just as profound whether they are under 10, or 11, 12 or 13 years of age. I am therefore in favour of raising the age limit to 16. Victim protection for these children must also be safeguarded, not only for the children but also for the families and the witnesses. Legal assistance and psychological support are very important. Children should also be given the opportunity to make their witness statements on video, which is unfortunately not the practice in every country. Sadly, there is not enough time for further comments. However, I would like to thank everyone who supports the work in this field.

Political group: PSE