kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
six days ago the secretary general of the united nations called on the ltte to remove its weapons and fighters from areas of civilian concentration and to cooperate in all humanitarian efforts calculated to relieve the suffering of civilians.
a tiny minority of members of this house were unhappy with the resolution passed by the majority in this parliament and disgracefully and improperly they wanted to focus condemnation on the sri lankan government. we cannot support amendments based on unattributable and often nonsensical allegations as we have heard from mr evans or selective quotation from one ngo report.
we are no longer facing a crisis but what i think is already a humanitarian catastrophe.
both the ltte and the sri lankan army are responsible for the dramatic increase in civilian casualties during the past months.
to let the civilians go and agree on a peaceful end to the fighting.
we feel that the government of sri lanka has an obligation to protect all its own citizens and agree to a humanitarian ceasefire this was also said in the council conclusions last time to allow sick and wounded people to leave vanni and to arrange for food and medicine to be let in.
lasting peace and reconciliation can only be achieved by addressing the concerns which led to the insurgency in the first place and by providing adequate space for all the communities.
we continue to be alarmed about the human rights situation in sri lanka against the background of reports of extrajudicial killings abductions and serious intimidation of the media.
the commission is convinced that the outcome of this crisis will have lasting consequences for peace for reconciliation and for the unity of sri lanka and in this context strongly supports the call issued by sir john holmes to the government of sri lanka to interrupt hostilities to allow time for the civilian population to get out safely and to the ltte
it is very important that the government follows up the most prominent high profile cases.
this was confirmed to us by a wide range of independent sources including the un and the icrc.
it is clearly a very important subject although it is regrettable that we are discussing it at eleven o'clock at night with so few people here.
a temporary ceasefire by its very nature implies a return to war later on which nobody wants.
we are to use the commissioner's words deeply concerned about the situation.
i support the original resolution tabled with the exception of the one word temporary'.
finally amendment nine suggests we send this resolution to the secretary general of the united nations because i believe that this is an international humanitarian crisis as reflected in the title and that we should do everything we
we cannot condone any violence including the recent suicide attack which has been referred to.
' i doubt that anyone would suggest that this is fabricated.
likewise amendment two i support this amendment too because it condemns all acts of violence by whoever is perpetrating them on whatever side of the conflict.
i know that the commissioner's office in colombo is following this very closely and has close contacts within the real danger zone.
the sri lankan government forces indiscriminately attacked all parts of the safe zone' using every kind of lethal shells some of them banned in many countries.
in this indiscriminate cluster shelling more than one hundred and thirty civilians were killed including children and more than two hundred were severely injured.
more i would suggest that we all want to do everything we can to help bring an end to that sort of violence.
he says i wish to bring to your urgent attention the civilian deaths in sri lanka.
then i turn my attention to amendments three four and.
anybody is welcome to look at these pictures that have been sent to
tonight's debate recognises also that the situation has moved on and as mrs isler bguin said at the beginning that we need to send a strong signal about the deteriorating situation that is worsening day by day.
so i applaud the greens for their first amendment amendment one and i am sure that all decent people here concerned about the civilians in sri lanka will too.
of course it is too early to say whether this will mean the end of terrorist activity by the tamil tigers.
a long term ceasefire would be a disaster because as a suicide attack in sri lanka earlier this week demonstrates the ltte is ruthless bloodthirsty and rightly identified as a terrorist organisation by the european union and the united states.
nevertheless allowing the un and other organisations to arrange safe passage from the conflict zone for these civilians is essential to avoid further bloodbaths. sri lanka appreciates its own responsibility in this regard and wants to avoid civilian casualties but understandably the army's patience is limited and fears that the tigers will seek to escape by a sea evacuation procedure mixing in with the civilians.
therefore we on this side of the house endorse the establishment of a humanitarian corridor and a temporary and immediate ceasefire or cessation of hostilities but we also want to see the comprehensive defeat of the ltte and a peaceful just and multi ethnic sri lanka established in its place where there is maximum autonomy to the tamil majority areas and an equitable sharing of resources and power within a unitary sri lankan state.
that is clear;
my main preoccupation is to create the conditions for negotiations to be successful.
many of you have insisted on the need to have a dialogue.
let me quote mr brok and others in saying that our role and my role is to support any form and any format of dialogue that can make us and can make the ukrainians first of all together with the russians move towards positive results on our common objective which is a resolution to the conflict based on respect for
i understand from the debate that this is not the case and i would invite you too to exercise your personal individual political and institutional responsibility to work on signs of unity coming from this chamber because this is also the european union voice.
on the other hand it does not mean that we do not have to talk first of all because it is difficult to negotiate if you do not talk to the people you have to negotiate with and secondly because the ukrainians and the russians are talking to each other and we need to support that dialogue.
maybe i did not underline that point well enough at the beginning.
that is what we need to do making it clear that the sanctions are based on the situation on the ground.
but that is clear.
and let me say that i am quite worried by the level of the debate tonight.
and we have to understand what is the best that we can do at what times and in what format.
i am going to underline it clearly it has not only been stated by me several times but it is also in all our official positions. there is not going to be any change in our policy on the non recognition of the annexation of crimea.
duty. it is the only way in which we can play our
now what are we united on?
that is not going to be changed.
again maybe i was not clear enough in my opening remarks.
that is to be taken for granted;
i am sorry to say that very bluntly but my main preoccupation day and night is not where i am sitting.
we need to keep this unity;
but all of them have one thing in common hatred of western liberties and democratic societies.
terrorists have many faces from jihadists to talibanis to islamists in northern nigeria and the russian backed and funded bandits in eastern ukraine.
when talking about the peace process in ukraine europe has to keep stressing the importance of returning crimea to ukraine.
we were taken by surprise twice.
europe has to be very careful about what we consider real progress in the peace process in ukraine.
is there anyone who could call this progress?
all of us want peace and as soon as possible but core principles have to be maintained.
europe has seen its share of frozen conflicts and difficult territorial disputes.
we are punching below our weight we are having less impact than we could and your policy on that is too timid.
he says that so called shooters who killed protestors were third party agitators with cia fingerprints.
an eeas official has even said there is a clash of geopolitical rivalries of two competing empires.
all this just pokes the russian bear.
nevertheless i am deeply concerned at the mess the eu has made of its intervention in ukraine to date. whilst i support a ukrainian trade deal the eu association agreement is nakedly political. it talks of convergence in foreign and security policy and of military cooperation.
the eu must exhibit its strength and now ukraine wants to join nato.
this year acclaimed us film director oliver stone is releasing a documentary alleging that the cia was involved in the maidan demonstrations.
they did it in an impressive way in the elections in two thousand and fourteen where i had the honour to be an observer but our task is to help them confront the aggressor rebuild their economy and strengthen their democracy.
the humanitarian crisis in the east needs instant action.
a lot has been done but we must pursue our policies over time.
it is up to the people of ukraine to decide on their path.
the ambitions of the kremlin will foster division in our ranks and exploit every weakness. russian failure to live up to the minsk agreement shows that we must stand united and neither give into threats nor be carried by propaganda.
millions are in desperate need of food medical care and heating.
we must help ukraine implement the association agreement and support their efforts to tackle corruption. by cutting tariffs we have already been helping ukrainian exports substantially.
the core principles upon which peace and security in europe are based are being grossly violated. helping ukraine must be an imperative for the european union.
unicef reports are staggering.
it has been unity and it has to continue to be unity.
however it is very difficult to reform while facing a conflict on your own territory and i think that here we have two main responsibilities.
there are systemic issues that need to be addressed including corruption constitutional reform and decentralisation.
the question is not about going back to business as
last week the commission proposed a third macro financial assistance programme for eur.
let me use this opportunity to say that this must not become a trend.
weeks. at the same time as i said in my hearing before the european parliament before taking office it is time for the union to reflect on a less reactive and a more proactive approach in our relations with
to deliver on public expectations for an improved way of governance and the eu's readiness to support and assist this process.
like my colleagues i want to see implementation of the minsk agreements.
madam president i am very pleased to hear the high representative's report on the high level of activity observed amongst ngos during this difficult time.
in preparation for this debate i have been in communication with cultural actors from ukraine russia and eu member states who agree that more consideration must be given to the power of civil society to pursue peace building initiatives through the arts with the eu as a key player
before i give the floor to mr wasa for one and a half minutes can i just repeat the announcement to the chamber that we are not taking blue cards because of the time constraints on our debate.
it is important for ukraine especially in this difficult situation to move forward with reforms.
restoring democratic legitimacy and economic growth the adoption of anti corruption laws and the creation of the anti corruption bureau are steps in the right direction.
given the challenges ahead the eu support group for ukraine has a crucial role to play in identifying the areas where technical assistance is needed for the implementation of a reform programme.
so i would like to ask the high representative is the allocation of staff and resources enough for the support group to fulfil its mission in ukraine?
finally i would like to stress that the eu should express clear opposition to lifting sanctions against russia before clear conditions are met.
i can say i subscribe to every word there is in it. but let me make three general points. first ukraine faces two major challenges it has to reform itself and it has to defend itself at the same time.
it does not require a genius to know that it is extremely difficult and without outside help it cannot succeed.
history teaches us that change in russian politics has always resulted from the internal reshuffling of power.
if ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty can be restored in the eastern part of the country provided the russian forces withdraw crimea remains the biggest challenge both legally and militarily.
of course refusing international recognition of the annexation and imposing sanctions on business coming from and going to the peninsula will continue for long as it will take but the challenge remains.
ukraine now has responsibilities under that agreement and it is proper for us to exercise pressure in this respect.
the unity is to be provided primarily under your leadership.
the moment we have a fragmentation of messaging i think we will have no unity and we will also have some czech politicians that will be moving away from the common line.
secondly aid we are doing a lot and we can do more and i think the member states can contribute.
i think that we are dealing with an administration that needs some significant support.
including russia as well.
obstacles to the work by the special monetary mission must be removed and ukraine needs to carry out the political economic and social reforms that the nation needs.
i am not happy because of that but i hope that it will hurt putin enough to be sensible and indeed go to the negotiating table wherever that table is whether it is in public or in private and produce results.
that is what we should do now.
that is essential because otherwise there will be a kind of ukraine fatigue where people say ukraine again?
' so we should help them.
proceedings in the event of succession divorce or dissolution should be consolidated as far as possible before the courts of the same member state;
the commission cannot support the proposed definition of habitual residence;
the proposals are a logical step forward in terms of implementing the principle of mutual recognition in the sphere of family law.
the commission prefers the court of justice to provide guidance on the interpretation of this notion.
i am aware that matrimonial property regimes and property consequences of registered partnerships are sensitive areas which are intrinsically linked to national policies on family protection and judicial systems and that there are considerable differences between the national laws.
the commission cannot support the amendment concerning the provision on overriding mandatory rules which in its opinion blurs the distinction with the public policy provision.
we have the long standing brussels iia regulation on the jurisdiction and recognition of decisions in matrimonial matters;
it is true that we have been waiting too long for clear rules in relation to matrimonial property regimes and property consequences of registered partnerships. currently as the rapporteur rightly said there are sixteen million international couples and it is estimated that over eur four hundred and sixty million is at stake each year should these couples separate through divorce or bereavement. however the rules on property rights of international couples are very complex and very difficult to interpret.
and we have the new regulation on succession which also covers jurisdiction applicable law and free circulation of decisions and authentic instruments.
by excluding in the case of divorce questions of entitlement to transfer or adjustment of rights to retirement or disability pensions accrued during marriage.
on other points the commission has reservations.
we have the rome iii regulation which sets out the rules determining the law applicable to divorce or legal separation as regards the personal consequences of dissolving a marriage;
and there should be free movement of court decisions and authentic instruments in europe. i welcome the improvements to the text of the proposed regulations thanks to the rapporteur who insisted in particular on aligning the proposals to the succession regulation that had recently been adopted and clarifying the scope of the proposed regulation
as far as property consequences of registered partnerships are concerned and taking into consideration the prospect for agreement within the council the commission could be prepared to be flexible on the introduction of a limited choice of law as proposed by the rapporteur.
the proposals supplement existing international private law rules.
parliament's resolutions on which you will vote tomorrow are an important step towards the adoption of the two regulations.
they were however identified by the council as a priority area for union action back in two thousand in the context of mutual recognition programmes.
this notion exists in other instruments in family law without any formal definition being given and national authorities apply it without any major difficulties.
the proposed regulations provide a unique opportunity to show that europe is taking action to make life easier for citizens in difficult human and legal situations.
the commission is also not convinced by the amendments concerning the law applicable to the property consequences of registered partners in the absence of choice as it seems to undermine the key objective of applying one predictable applicable law to the whole property
i welcome the fact that the two reports maintain the main policy objectives of the commission proposal property consequences of the couple should be governed by one single applicable law;
the amendment proposed on choice of court agreements may be too broad and would undermine the overall objective of consolidation of jurisdiction.
women are often more vulnerable than men and i put forward recommendations which in the situation of financial dependency or in circumstances related to domestic violence would provide additional protection for those at risk.
member states in council which have to take a decision by unanimity should therefore be reminded of the practical importance of the text whose adoption and entry into force are eagerly awaited by thousands of european citizens.
the european parliament madam rapporteur can count on my full support to advance quickly the negotiations on these two files in council in the coming months and i hope that we can come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
the experience we gain from these initiatives will allow us to find even better and more efficient ways to collaborate at a european level making full use of both national and community research programmes.
in view of the key global political problems that we are facing in policy areas such as climate change energy food and health the requirement to pool resources and work together becomes necessary.
this is a political achievement for all of the institutions of the european union.
the bonus initiative would clearly help the countries of the baltic sea region to address more effectively the very complex and pressing environmental problems in this area by promoting synergies and avoiding the wasteful duplication of purely national research efforts.
as i said at my european parliament ratification hearing last january i am deeply committed to the complete realisation of the european research area but we must work together in a spirit of unity and cooperation if we are going to achieve this objective. this is vitally important for the future economic development of the european union and if we are to ensure that the eu becomes a global leader in the fields of research innovation and science.
i am very satisfied that all article one hundred and eighty five initiatives announced under the cooperation element of the seventh eu framework programme have now been adopted.
it does not allow for the full realisation of the benefits added value and efficiency gains of cross border collaboration. for this reason the european commission would like to stress that the implications of this decision should not be taken as a precedent for future proposals. member states will need to commit to a real common pot for cross border funding and collaboration before the launch of any further initiatives based on article one hundred and eighty five of the lisbon treaty.
science has a very important role to play in supporting public policy in the research and environmental sectors.
this is indeed the challenge that we face in the baltic sea region. it is clear that no individual baltic sea state acting alone can be successful in solving the complex environmental issues in this area.
mr president i wish to express my gratitude to the european parliament and particularly to the rapporteur ms lena ek for supporting the european commission's proposals on the joint baltic sea research programme bonus.
i welcome the institutional agreement that was reached with regard to the implementation of the bonus initiative on twenty seven april last.
having said this i would also like to stress my regret at the lack of agreement among the member states to put in place a real common pot model as set out in the original european commission proposal.
to come back to this current initiative the european commission has every confidence that the bonus programme will be in a position to optimise the potential of environmental research programmes in the baltic sea region enhance the scientific capacity of the area facilitate cross border mobility of researchers promote synergies and avoid wasteful duplication of research efforts. this will secure a sustainable future for the baltic sea.
to tackle the environmental problems in the baltic sea it is now a matter of urgency to develop a strategic and integrated research strategy for the region enable cross border synergies pool resources share knowledge and enhance the cross border mobility of researchers. this is how we can ensure a sustainable future for the baltic sea region. the bonus initiative together with the efforts made within the framework of the eu strategy for the baltic sea region will provide the structure and the means to address these challenges in an effective and coordinated manner.
however the fragmentation of the european research system and the lack of coordination and coherence among its national components undermine its cost effectiveness and overall performance.
these ever increasing pressures are today threatening the capacity of the baltic sea region to continue to provide the diverse range of goods and services upon which we have all learned to depend.
without having a real common pot financing facility the selection of the best transnational research proposals based strictly on scientific excellence the quality of the consortium and the expected impact cannot be fully guaranteed.
that is seven hundred zero people mothers fathers brothers sisters aunts uncles grandparents and children.
here are some of the goodies that were sent to me but i will say that i will vote to save lives and to deliver for those constituents who are anxious to see new tobacco control measures implemented. in europe each year the total deaths caused by road accidents drugs murders suicide and accidents at work do not come to a fifth of those caused by tobacco
the measures proposed by this directive would reduce after five years the number of people smoking by. two four million and result in a net increase of two two hundred and forty three jobs created due to increased disposable income spent on other goods and services.
some of them are known to us as we have heard in the chamber today and yet there are meps who still find it difficult to vote in favour of public health measures to combat these avoidable and unnecessary deaths.
it is true that the aims of the tobacco industry can never be reconciled with those of public health.
meat? politics is the art of the possible of