GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, what is this war about? Knowing the answer to that question is of course the prior condition of being able to prevent it. As the weapons inspectors become more successful in their work, the purpose of the war is, however, changing. I now also hear from my esteemed fellow MEP, Mrs Malmström, that what is at issue is removing the dictator in Baghdad. Excuse me, but I thought the idea was to disarm Iraq and destroy its weapons of mass destruction. The picture I now have is of the UN’s far exceeding the limits of its powers and replacing regimes we do not like. We do not like Saddam Hussein. Being opposed to the war is not the same as being friends with Saddam Hussein; or with Mr Le Pen for that matter; or, indeed, with President Chirac. I am not friendly with any of them, but that only shows of course how broad the anti-war movement is, and how narrow the movement in favour of war is gradually becoming. If what we are concerned with is a change of regime, may I ask where the EU is when it is a question of receiving refugees from the dictatorship we wish to bring to an end. Where is the EU when people take flight from the abominable dictator described by my fellow MEP, Mr Evans? Why do we throw those refugees back into the hands of the regime we want to change? Why, just as my fellow MEP Mr Cohn-Bendit said, do we not support democratic movements in Iran? I shall stop there, for I have no more speaking time left.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to congratulate all those who have contributed to the programme, and also the Commission – I will explain why presently – and the Council, because in the final conciliation proceedings it clearly made every effort to accept and move closer to Parliament’s position. I would like to congratulate the Commission on the programme that it has drawn up. I think that it is evident that time has also taught the Commission to work along the right lines. An environmental action plan should contain broad guidelines, not annexes or specific measures, but rather it should be the main hook on which all future measures should hang. And in this respect, I think that the Commission has been capable of creating a viable programme that is full of common sense, which gives more authority to the Commission itself and to Europe than an ideal programme full of demands that is impossible to fulfil and implement, which would, therefore, have been unfair. I must also commend the choice of thematic strategies. I think that this is a qualitative step forward that heralds a new way of working, in which scientific values are going to be taken into account, a report is going to be drawn up on the status of the issue, the costs and capacity for implementation are going to be assessed and, moreover, there is going to be better knowledge of what is happening in Europe before commencing the measures. I think that these thematic strategies are a measure that should be extended to many areas. They will even enable us, for example, to know what the costs are, which is one of the things that there is a demand for: when a policy is defined, for its costs to be defined. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the thematic strategies have to be applied to policy on climate change and emissions. We cannot just have strategies on motor fuels but not on heating. There is a risk, however, that applying the policies will damage the rural environment; a misunderstood and excessively broad taxation policy for certain products could cause huge damage to those who live far away from the territory and are caring for the countryside and the environment. I therefore call for a fair and balanced application.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Economist says that we need 13.5 million immigrants by the year 2015 in order to get everything done that needs to be done in Europe. The International Herald Tribune says that we shall not succeed in obtaining that level of immigration and recruitment. On other continents, there is an awareness of how racism is growing in Europe, and it is precisely because of racism that immigrants are choosing other continents, notably America, instead of Europe. We are used to coming out against racism, because we want to combat intolerance and xenophobia. Perhaps we must also combat these things for the sake of our own future. Those who maintain that they speak for enterprise and for small businesses are speaking against their own better judgement when they do not support the present proposed directive. I support most of the amendments, but on one point I am uneasy. This is Amendment No 29 in which it is proposed that a difference of treatment on the basis of ethnic origin, which is presented as a difference of treatment on the grounds of religion, conviction or nationality, is to be deemed discrimination. I am afraid that this may be self-defeating. In Swedish law on measures to combat ethnic discrimination, it is expressly stated that, in using the term ethnic affiliation, the law means that someone belongs to a group of persons of the same race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin or confession. There is a danger that what we believe to be an extension of the definition concerned may, in actual fact, be a restriction of it. The general interpretation is, in fact, that ethnic affiliation embraces nationality. I shall not, therefore, be voting for the present amendment. It contradicts what I properly consider to be the case.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. We are delighted to hear that the people of Yugoslavia, mainly in Belgrade but also in other towns, have known how to take their fate into their own hands and have done so. However, our delight is tainted with fear that there may be bloodshed, that not everyone wants to and can accept the voice, power and strength of the people. Everything must therefore be done to prevent bloodshed, because a civil war in Yugoslavia or Serbia would be a veritable disaster. Mr Dupuis, you have abused this truly historic moment here in order to engage in political demagogy. I have only one thing to say to you: my group and I are unequivocally in favour of bringing Milosevic to justice before the court in the Hague. That has always been our objective; but we have a still higher objective, which is to avoid bloodshed and we shall do everything we can so that bloodshed is avoided. The Commission and the Council will do their part and that is what is currently at the top of the agenda in Yugoslavia and that is what we have been interested in all along. We shall not sacrifice the Serbian people to our noble and moral objectives, because that would mean that perhaps thousands of people in Serbia and Yugoslavia might die for them. Secondly, we are in a very delicate position and, therefore, we too trust that there will be fast changes in Yugoslavia and Serbia, because the situation is not easy in either Montenegro or Kosovo. Here, too, I have one thing to say: we have supported the efforts with which the people have defended themselves against the brutal force emanating from Milosevic in both Kosovo and Montenegro, but under no circumstances do we support the concept of ethnically clean states. Kosovo must be independent come what may and Montenegro must be independent come what may, just to ensure that Serbia is weakened. Our objective is still – and I admit it – for there to be a new Yugoslavia, a Yugoslavia with an independent state of Kosovo and an independent state of Montenegro; it is not for there to be new divisions, renewed conflict, renewed clashes or renewed force, that is not our objective; on the contrary, a new Yugoslavia needs to emerge, a democratic Yugoslavia, where people stay willingly, not under duress, not under brutality, but because they are convinced that a federation can emerge which has a democratic future, a democratic future under different leaders and from which Milosevic can be removed – if possible – by bringing him before the court in the Hague, because we want justice, but we want justice with peace. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
This third annual report on equal opportunities for women and men in the European Union sets out the highlights and successes of the year 1998. It must be said that although equality between women and men has been proclaimed by law, the facts are there to remind us that the discrimination and difficulties women face unfortunately persist. Women are the most vulnerable to unemployment. The 1998 report makes a special study of the phenomenon of unemployment and the economic impact of under-employment of women. It also analyses the measures taken to incorporate employment policies strictly focused on women or policies to restrict gender discrimination in employment, for example, in employment contracts, types of employment and remuneration. Moreover, women are often in ‘flexible’ jobs; temporary contracts and low salaries are typical in sectors where women employees are in a majority. Women’s careers are often unstable, and they can only acquire experience with difficulty. That situation is often illustrated by low levels of social protection and precarious living conditions. Women are also over-represented in ‘typically female’ occupations but under-represented in jobs with responsibility and in the professions. Furthermore, women are not as well represented as men in rapidly growing sectors such as information and communications technologies, with women tending to occupy the lowest level in the hierarchy. It is therefore crucial to restore balance by establishing education and training policies specifically geared to young women. Gender disparity is also prevalent when it comes to wages and salaries. Figures available for 1995 show that for the European Union as a whole, the hourly wage for a woman is only 73% of that for a man doing equal work. I therefore fully support the rapporteur in urging the Commission to pursue its efforts and in particular to strengthen the ‘strategic’ nature of its annual reports, by assessing the effectiveness of policy initiatives rather than contenting itself with describing them. I also think it is necessary to stress that Community standards of respect for women’s rights and equal opportunities should be implemented in the candidate countries even before they join. Finally, I invite the Member States to pursue the dual strategy advocated at Community level, involving mainstreaming and specific actions for women.

Political group: PSE
There is much that the British Conservative group can support in this report, in particular the emphasis on enlargement of the Union. However there are a number of specific elements which we cannot support, for example: -

Political group: PPE-DE
Even if you say, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that the Council cannot be expected to change its stance overnight, I do nonetheless believe that one can expect it to be willing to change a stance that causes problems of this sort. Our twenty-five different tax systems result in distortions of competition in the internal market; small and medium-sized businesses are put at a disadvantage, particularly when operating across borders; and, of course, unanimous voting in the Council on tax matters creates problems when it comes to strengthening the internal market and the European economy. So let me again ask you what initiative the Council would take in order to remove the disadvantages to small and medium-sized businesses resulting from differing tax systems and to support the internal market as a whole? What initiatives have been taken in the Convention by the Member States in order to do away with the requirement for unanimity on matters affecting the single market?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, let us try an experiment. Try to imagine, if you will, that you have to argue the case for what you are setting before us here in an election – one in which your own future is at stake. What arguments would you use? A new authority, even more security in someone’s hands in such a way that you can not see where things are leading, and withdrawal to a central location? In this election, your fellow-candidates would be those to whom you have been listening – Mr Beysen, Mr Langen, Mr Kronberger, Mr Rapkay, Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, and Mr Linkohr – and the only person who would vote for you would be none other than Mr Caudron. If you were to do that, would anyone be aware of what your fundamental political convictions actually are? I have been in this House for four years, but a proposal for enforced blessings the like of which you have come up with is new to me; I have seen it only in another Union, one that imploded on itself not least because it demanded that sort of thing. I think that what you are working towards is the meeting of a need for what Socialists and Communists used to call security ‘from the cradle to the grave’, but by the wrong means, and the way this constantly comes across in speeches in debate suggests to our minds that this security is a false one. I think we really have to go in another direction. One cannot evade the impression that this is a Commission that is slowly running out of ideas on energy, which again has to have recourse to directives on the subject; energy should take you where we really have to go. How do we leave behind us fossil fuels and dependency on them, and achieve transparency? If I am actually to leave security of supply in the hands of the regions and of enterprises, then this has to be clearly documented and the citizens and consumers concerned have to know how it is to be secured. Please, though, let us have no new centrally-enforced blessings.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the first EC-Israel Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1975 and for 20 years the location of exported products was never questioned. However, now it is being used as a political instrument to bash Israel and the settlements. The author of the oral question has gone as far as calling for the suspension of the more recent 1995 agreement, even though the Commission has controversially agreed with her and imposed tariffs on goods allegedly exported by the settlements in the Occupied Territories. This is a technical dispute on trade and, although I am a friend of Israel, I support an eventual two-state solution and a dismantling of most of the settlements. Palestine is not yet a state competent to have its own trade agreements, which, controversially, the EU ratified in 1994. The Commission did this in spite of the fact that Israel had the signed agreement of the Palestinian Authority that Israel was responsible for customs matters for goods exported from the settlements. Nevertheless, there is also an EU-Palestine Free Trade Agreement. Therefore, whichever way you look at it, these goods should have EU tariff-free access as they come from territories covered by one or other free trade agreement. All trade agreements refer to the territory where the goods are produced, not the nationality or the religion of the producers. This whole dispute is now subject to a technical resolution under Article 79 of the Association Agreement, which is where it rightfully belongs. It should not be the subject of political manipulation within this House. The debate is engendering further hostility to trade with Israel and undermines Israel's faith in the impartiality of the EU as a vital component of the quartet in the quest for the Roadmap for Peace and the end of terrorism. I am sure that all sides of the House desire that outcome strongly.

Political group: PPE-DE
In March 2000, the Lisbon Summit took a thoughtless decision. The justified ambition to achieve social security for everyone was not translated into a fairer distribution of existing work by means of a general cut in working hours, early retirement and an increase in public services, but into a desire to achieve yet more economic growth for private businesses instead. This growth and the competition with the two other economic superpowers means that existing public services in the field of public transport, energy supply, postal services and telecommunications, again have to be taken over by large international concerns. This is a disastrous route because it makes our people dependent on competition, and as soon as Europe loses this competitive battle, it will plunge our continent into a deep economic crisis. Moreover, privatisation leads to our democratically elected parliamentarians having less say and to pressure being exerted to save on labour costs. This is why the idea of a ‘social Europe’, as backed by some advocates of the Lisbon decisions, will not get off the ground; a ‘Europe of capital’ will emerge instead. Unfortunately, the Bullman report continues on this wrong path of confusing ‘social’ with ‘capital’ but, according to the Right, this is not yet taking things far enough. This is, for me, a reason to vote against.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, learning from a catastrophe means facing the future. All the laws or directives that we pass here are, at the end of the day, worth nothing if they cannot be monitored and enforced. For this reason, we need very rapidly in the medium term a European coast guard service, not least in view of the new and emerging risk of terrorism. We cannot sit and wait until terrorists attack vessels in European waters, but rather we must counter them in good time through a coast guard service. My second point is that the Baltic is a sensitive maritime area. As a committee, we called for obligatory pilots in the Baltic, but we are aware that this cannot be achieved without Russia. For this reason, we ask you, Commissioner, to combine with the Commission and the Council in putting political pressure on Russia to ensure that Russia also at last complies with the international regulations in the IMO. My third and final point is that we are aware that 80% of all accidents at sea are attributable to human error. Hitherto, we have devoted great attention to technology. In the future, we must concentrate more on the human factor, which means that we must direct our attention more specifically to the training of captains, officers and crew in accident management, fire protection and emergency measures.

Political group: PSE
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of the joint resolution on the result of the European Council’s Summit in Nice, which took place from 7 to 11 December 2000. For us it was crucial in the entire process surrounding this Intergovernmental Conference that the last formal barriers to the enlargement of the EU be removed. This aim was achieved in Nice, and seen in this light the summit was a success. A number of members of the European Parliament argued in very strong terms for the agenda to be expanded. We warned against this on repeated occasions and the events in Nice show with all the clarity one could ask for that a substantially broader agenda could have resulted in no result whatsoever being achieved this year, with catastrophic consequences for enlargement. We have also always believed that a balanced solution between small and big countries should be found in connection with the composition of the Commission, voting rights in the Council of Ministers and the composition of Parliament. On this point, too, we believe that a satisfactory result has been achieved. However, we note that the formal opportunities for achieving qualified majority voting have been restricted and that qualified majority voting has been introduced only in a limited number of areas. There is thus a real risk that it will become more difficult to implement essential legislation on the environment, consumer protection and the working environment, and we strongly recommend the states to demonstrate responsibility and to make the decision-making procedures in the Council more efficient. Together with the new Treaty of Nice it was decided that preparations should be commenced for the next Intergovernmental Conference. We believe that it is important to take plenty of time and find a form worthy of modern, practical EU cooperation, and that a power game such as was played out in Nice must not prevail. It does not help to encourage public support for cooperation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the joint resolution which we are about to put to the vote is, in my opinion, particularly well-balanced. Notably, the Rotterdam incident does not alter our view of the human rights record or the quality of democracy in Holland, which I consider to be among the most liberal countries in the world, although it was treated as serious, both in terms of the shameful treatment of the disabled people and because of the violence against the journalists who were merely doing their duty. Their nationality is of little importance. The European Union, through its highest expression of democracy, the European Parliament, condemns the occurrence of such an incident within its borders. This is the best approach to take on the matter. Any national aspects will, where necessary, be dealt with by the governments concerned and are nothing to do with us. On the other hand, particularly in its urgent resolutions, the European Union does not hold back in expressing stringent positions on the conduct of other countries or events taking place in other parts of the world where human rights are violated. Would it not lose all credibility if it did not also criticise similar events within its borders?

Political group: ELDR