kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
but we did it without hesitation well before midnight and we did it first before other international partners or actors reacted publicly because for us for the european union it is always absolutely clear that there is no space in our world and in particular there is no space in our region
let me mention two issues in particular on which our dialogue is particularly crucial two difficult issues.
this is an absolute truth for the european union that cannot be questioned at any time.
all detainees should have access to lawyers and family members and detention conditions need to be constantly scrutinised. independent monitoring of trials is essential to ensure due process.
our societies. we need to work on our politics and we need to work on
we agreed on the basic principles that should guide the future of
so for us it was an absolute priority immediately to state clearly that the defence of the democratic legitimate institutions starting with the parliament that was attacked in those hours is a priority. last week in ankara we had the high level political dialogue between the european union and turkey.
issue. to that extent the accession negotiations provide an excellent framework for a broad dialogue on the entire spectrum of our cooperation.
we need especially to work together openly and frankly on all issues in these very difficult times.
but any alleged wrongdoing or crime should be subject to due process and the right of every individual to a fair trial needs to be respected.
us it was key to meet all the political parties while we were visiting ankara and to listen to their views on our relations their views on their country their views on the political direction of the country and their views on our joint work. we need to work on
we also agreed that only a political process and a political transition can bring peace and democracy to the country.
this is an exercise that we do quite often the last one was in january and it allows us to cover all the different issues and strengths of our cooperation.
still if we really want our dialogue to benefit both of us our conversation cannot be limited to governments.
it would have been a dramatic blow to turkey's democracy and destabilised the whole region even further a region that definitely does not need to be destabilised still more. this is why we intervened and i intervened personally in support of turkey's democratically elected institutions as soon as i got the news.
share. there is another special issue that i would like to mention which is absolutely key for us the entire european union and on which we have found a clear political will in ankara to move forward in the direction that we want
even more so in our region and even more so in a candidate country.
interests. for all these reasons and many others our relations cannot be limited to one single
respectful and clear to each other.
down. at the same time we believe that a credible political process should start.
state. so despite all the difficulties we have common ground on which we can work. i have mentioned
again we have to engage with turkey to break the deadlock on the terror law and move forward.
i welcome the commission's decision to disburse meal cards for the three million refugees who are welcome in turkey but not everywhere in europe.
while bringing those responsible to justice and of course important to remain firm on freedom of expression.
the best way to advance reforms in the judiciary and fundamental rights is to open chapters twenty three and.
it is time to intensify dialogue with turkey on all issues of common concern.
turkey is a crucial partner for
but it is by engaging with turkey that we will achieve results towards democracy. by just condemning and criticising emotionally we are adding fuel to the fire and polarising people.
twenty four turkey is not backing away from the migration deal and neither should we. we should not punish children and women because of erdogan.
mr president let us be clear the failed coup on fifteen july two thousand and sixteen was an attack against democracy in which two hundred and sixty five people lost their lives in front of tanks. i regret that the eu was slow in denouncing the coup and in supporting the elected government. it is imperative now to stand by the people of turkey and show understanding for the trauma they went through. it is also important that the rule of law and human rights are fully respected
visa liberalisation should be a merit based process with no double standards against turkey.
if not it will take more time.
turkey is not just a government.
it is the journalists who are trying to do their job actually.
it is the transgender people who are fighting for their rights. it is the kurds who are looking for some sort of cultural rights as well and it is the neighbours who are helping syrian and other refugees.
those are our strategic partners.
yes the perpetrators should be brought to justice but in fair trials and with proportionate measures and that excludes the death penalty.
let us be clear the measures we now see after the failed coup and the anti terror laws are being abused for disproportionate cleansing and silencing of critics.
the rule of law was is and will remain our group's key priority.
the fact that glenists and the ak party together built an illiberal coalition for so long and the government now accuses the glenists of this coup is a confirmation of a breakdown of accountability checks and balances and transparency.
trade and people to people relations are strong;
but let us not narrow the relationship to the toxic migration deal or the crippled accession talks.
friends tell each other the truth' goes the old turkish saying and we should remind them of that and build our relations on our own principles.
in reality it is mainly against the kurds and their partners in the democratic selfadministration dsa in northern syria. the troops of this dsa named the syrian democratic forces are at this moment very successful in combatting isis.
this right cannot equate however with enabling president erdogan and the ak party to have carte blanche to detain arrest and remove from office all political opponents at will under the pretence of fighting terror. neither can it justify disproportionate military force against the kurdish civilian population in the south east. as we now see tens of thousands removed from their posts in the army the judiciary the civil service academia and private media outlets with little due process such an approach
solely on the basis that they are old glenists and terrorists is very difficult to justify.
as we now watch with renewed hope if not total confidence in the emerging ceasefire in syria i am minded to comment on the recent efforts by turkey to support the free syrian army in liberating parts of the turkish syrian border areas from isis daesh.
i did not say that there is rule of law at the moment in everything that is happening in turkey.
what i am saying is that in order to achieve results in a country that is absolutely crucial for the european union and to make sure that the people of turkey do not feel let down by europe we need to engage in dialogue.
i think we have to be realistic here not talking with one another is not an option.
when we talk we have to do it respectfully.
this was very much good work.
i think it is good that parliament was able to exercise its right and ensure that we were able to cover what was overlooked in the past. while i am certainly no fan of modulation and i have always opposed it this was very necessary to guarantee funding for rural development measures and commitments certainly in the united kingdom.
this discrimination against the uk primarily needs to stop. we need a fairer allocation of pillar two farmers and to protect our farmers in the uk.
however the conservative led british government is reluctant to make use of some of those discretionary funds that are available to support our farmers. in fact they are increasing the uneven playing field by wishing to voluntarily reduce direct payments faster than any other member states which is why i will be voting against amendments one to twelve and.
i also believe it is important that we must be very strong in achieving a credible budget settlement in the mff and most importantly we must correct the imbalances in rural development allocations; this is especially important for countries like the united kingdom which traditionally has a very poor allocation.
the current reform of the common agriculture policy post two thousand and thirteen must also recognise the importance of direct payments and support through pillar two for those actively farming to produce traceable wholesome food and promote food security within europe. i believe that pillar one payments should remain as direct support to recognise the extra lengths that farmers go to in producing food.
for us in the uk that has also been very important.
also very important is that the transition for these payments must be smooth and limited in its impact on farmers' incomes especially in the light of the ongoing volatility within world markets.
it is also very significant for us that there are payment commitments for less favoured areas and for the agri environment schemes that are so important.
therefore i believe that we can be pleased with the progress to date and the constructive outcomes.
pillar two is best placed to deliver tailored outcomes in rural development and in the environment.
clearly both in england and in scotland without the ability to top slice single farm payments and switch the money into rural development the rural development programmes both in england and scotland would have huge financial black holes in them for the year.
i look forward to continue working with him on cap going forward.
also in relation to the ecological focus areas again we need to ensure that the percentages are workable and that we have a comprehensive and precise list of what is and what is not included in these areas.
on greening i think it will be important to increase the baseline from crop to diversification which as it stands is impractical especially for small and medium farmers.
mr president my constituency in wales depends heavily on the rural economy;
without these payments many farming families would probably leave the business altogether.
i therefore welcome the move to allow these direct farm payments to continue on a historic basis for the coming year until the new cap is in place. i would however make a plea that transitional arrangements under any new agreement should be flexible and open to regional interpretation as our farmers adapt to the new rules.
i look forward to welcoming the commissioner himself to this year's royal welsh show where the farmers can put their case to him directly.
this is a bit of solid work on the part of parliament and the commission in terms of giving some welcome clarity going forward for our farmers that rural development programmes and lfa direct payments will continue in the bridging period into the next cap.
there is not a great degree of controversy around the chamber tonight.
there are member states which want to cut direct payments to farmers. however from a scottish perspective direct payments are of crucial support to farm incomes and we very much want to see them continue. i am very pleased that the scottish government has been so constructive and so in the mainstream of european thinking.
it is rather unfortunate that our present member state has been rather less constructive in its negotiations not least over the general nature of the budget.
we work together in nato;
the eu together with brazil canada and mexico are the countries most affected by this but there are others who also export steel.
we are cooperating in the fight against is;
but as long as the measures have not entered into force we hope to avoid a significant trade dispute.
when there are no trade agreements these are the tariffs and they are not only vis vis the us but they are against all countries with whom we do not have a free trade agreement.
we are creating a circle of friends with parties across the world who are of the firm belief that trade is a good thing if we make good trade agreements based on fair sustainable and transparent trade.
it is part of a bigger picture. we believe that this measure is a safeguard in disguise and that the exception that does exist in the wto but which is meant to be used for wartime is misused.
protection is never a good answer and that is why we are reaching out to other parties of the world in order to jointly stand up for the principles of the rulesbased international global trading system and the multilateral organisations.
on tariffs we need to clarify a few issues.
that is why we stand up to do this within the framework of wto rules and the global trading system.
whether a summit is the way to solve this is beyond my pay grade.
on trade distortions ms arena that is why we have the safeguard measures that we are ready to put into place.
i think we have to try to solve these issues quite urgently actually.
so we are confident that we could win such a case in the wto and we are reaching out to other friends and allies to see if we can make a joint approach to the wto.
it was a very constructive meeting and the aim is of course to work to improve the level playing field.
so that is why you cannot negotiate them individually.
i want to thank you for the strong support you have given to the commission and our approach to adopt wto compatible measures.
wto is not perfect but it has served us well us the us and many other countries of the world and we would rather work together to strengthen it and not weaken
and our friendship and strategic partnership goes way back.
way. i also want to thank you because i know many of you have reached out individually to us counterparts in congress and elsewhere.
it. that is why we are also reaching out to other countries and have this very ambitious trading agenda.
the root problem as many of you have said is over capacity in the steel and aluminium sectors.
we have stood together in iraq afghanistan and many other places in the world;
that goes a long way back.
the exceptions for canada and mexico are related to a satisfactory outcome of the negotiations of nafta so we are still looking for more information there.
sixty seven we would of course prefer it if the president of the united states did not introduce new tariffs. nevertheless it is important to understand the reasons. if i may make a suggestion to the eu national governments the united states would be much more likely to take note of what
to give just one example the eu imposes duties on agricultural goods that can be up to.
indeed one compelling reason for brexit is that the european union is itself protectionist despite what mr weber said.
china has been dumping steel.
before anybody blue cards me that is what the customs union is there is an external tariff wall.
thirdly when running for election the president of the united states made promises.
we don't need revenge we don't need retaliation and we don't need penalty.
but let me just remind you of some key facts here before we start throwing bats and whatever at the usa. the european union is the largest protectionist trade block in the world eur seventeen billion a year charged to exporters via the common external tariff.
why don't you sort out to own trade policy in the first instance?
and then we have all of the red tape and the regulation which equally acts as a tariff barrier or a barrier to trade in some context.
therefore to keep criticising mr trump and the usa because of his trade policy is not going to be in the least bit helpful because he's going to be able to come back and say what about in your own backyard?
' diplomacy is going to be absolutely pivotal here.
it is continuing this week and we hope that very soon we can report to you in more detail on the outcome of this.
they risk undermining the multilateral trading system and moreover the european union which is made up of friends and allies in nato is not a threat to the national security of the us.
we are therefore entitled to use the wto safeguard agreement to rebalance the benefits we have granted to the us in the past.
so these are the three tracks we are discussing.
we urge our trading partners to do likewise.
we do not want to encourage further closing of the steel and aluminium markets.
we do not want things to escalate.
so things should not be escalated;
the second track would be to protect our market from potentially significant trade diversion.
on a common global order that we have constructed together with our us partners.
we will manoeuvre carefully but of course we need to protect the interests of the citizens and our jobs.
unfortunately i did not leave saturday's meeting with sufficient clarity regarding the exclusions.
we do not share the view that trade wars are good and that they are easy to win. on the contrary they are very bad for the world and they are very easy to lose.
these allow for measures corresponding to the economic loss suffered and we are discussing different us products.
we are ready to act in a proportionate way according to wto rules.
last week the college of commissioners discussed three strands of work for future measures that would defend our interests and those of the trading system.
dialogue with the us is intense.
we know this from his actions in providing tax breaks for the richest and his regular attacks on vital services such as health care.
but he was elected because he exploited the genuine concerns of many working people in the united states people who haven't received the benefits of free trade and globalisation who in fact have lost their jobs and their faith in politics.
trump's latest actions in imposing trade tariffs must be seen in this context. however the european commission is playing in to his game by promoting a dangerous trade agenda.
any honest observer will attest that this agenda is rather than enriching everyone actually exacerbating the race to the bottom on global labour rights and standards.
if we want to respond effectively to trumpism then we need to abandon a trade agenda that will only widen inequalities in europe and across the globe.
normally trade arrangements are certainly not the kind of topic to be shaped in a number of angry tweets one morning tweets that sent stock markets plummeting and gary cohn resigning.
we condemn the harsh accusations in the eu's direction and frankly are puzzled by what we see.
adding insult to injury the president's tweets now also speculate about imposing tariffs on european cars and other accusations. for a country that exports so many german cars this is at least a bad business proposition. many jobs are created in the us by european companies and vice versa. we don't live in a zero sum world but we are actually mutually dependent. senior officials have suggested national security is the reason to impose broad steel and aluminium tariffs also in europe and as allies we believe these arguments are misguided and not justified.
the same goes for the notion that individual member states may negotiate exemptions. american hints at undermining the eu as well as british hints at being open to special treatment can only be read as being made in bad faith and must be challenged where the british governments will find out soon if necessary what the benefits of a common approach globally in the eu are or were in their case.
for decades the us and the eu have worked together to craft a rules based system rules for human rights war and peace and also trade.
but does history suggest that our citizens benefit from shaping globalisation from being rule makers instead of rule takers?
that is precisely what makes the soundbites of the current us administration so disturbing.
right at the time we need to work together as the liberal democracies of this world to curb unfair trade practices of china and others we are divided.
as vice president of the transatlantic legislators dialogue i look to members of congress in particular for their leadership and solid affirmation of the transatlantic relation.
we do not need a trade war and will do what we can to stop
but we are ready to adapt proportionate and wto compliance countermeasures when it's necessary.
we also have legitimate concerns about actors like china that are dumping steel on the global market and we have to face them together china and others in the world trade organization.
he made promises in the election and regardless of the consequences he wants to be able to say i promised abc i have delivered abc'.
therefore this parliament can only invite president trump and the us administration to take into consideration the potential damage before going any further.
we also acknowledge in the commission the good cooperation with the congress of the united states.
that is why the commission will concentrate on problem solving instead of provoking further problems in this fight.
what do we want to do is to clear up this mess.
i think there are good reasons which both sides will at the end of the day accept that we don't need and we don't want a trade war.
to be excluded from the scope of such measures.
we expect that the eu as a whole will be excluded as a key political security and economic partner that trades fairly with the united states.
we share and promote fundamental values such as democracy the rule of law and human rights.
we also believe in and stand for an undistorted market economy as well as open rule based and fair trade. in past years both the us and the eu have faced increased imports and dumping of steel and aluminium mostly from asia.
to a large extent this has been the consequence of global overcapacity in particular in china fuelled by massive domestic subsidies.
as a response both the eu and the united states have taken action against this in the form of anti dumping measures on chinese steel and aluminium imports which are allowed by the wto.
we should also better enforce wto rules and ideally update rules on subsidies which are incomplete and do not cover all situations well.
work will accelerate and intensify in the near future.
we hope that china will understand the value of a strong rules based order and join our effort even if it means going further in the reform of their economic model where the state still has a strong role. in the meantime we sincerely hope that the process of exclusion of eu steel and aluminium exports from
we believe that our exports do not cause any threat to us security.
the close cooperation between the uk the eu and the us through nato and other international forums is the cornerstone of international peace and security.
nonetheless it is right that the uk and the eu seek to defend our domestic industries from us tariffs but any countermeasures by the eu must be in accordance with international trade law and should not exacerbate an already tense situation.
we should lead by example to demonstrate that we believe in free trade and the rules based multilateral trade system.
i would like to reiterate the uk's commitment to working closely with the eu and its partners to consider the scope for exemptions as outlined by the us.
however i would like clarification on three points.
firstly canada mexico and australia have been excluded from these measures with the us citing their close security alliances for this decision.
does the commission believes that the us is seeking for the eu to negotiate a security agreement to address those concerns?
information is the key for consumers to make a choice.
i am particularly happy with the role given to the producer organisations in articles six to. thirty one i also welcome the common marketing standards in articles thirty two and thirty four which will lead to greater efficiencies in terms of marketing.
the minimum standards of consumer information to enable consumers to make an informed choice in article forty two and forty six are also extremely welcome.
as regards the stabilisation of the markets the commission is finally recognising the huge price volatility in the sector.