kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it is clear that the modernisation of the european union's trade defence instruments is linked to the granting of market economy status to china an issue which is of unprecedented political significance for the european union. the question of market economy status for china was also considered at the g seven summit in ise shima.
the current discussion on trade defence also reveals the growing concern in our societies regarding trade liberalisation.
however other member states feel that more forceful measures are needed and that a relaxation of the lesser duty rule is necessary in order to protect european industry against aggressive trade practices.
so in terms of trade defence instruments i suppose the decision that is facing the uk in fifteen days' time is do we do these things ourselves in the uk or should they continue to be done at eu level?
we would be able to take a decision straightforwardly and immediately for ourselves rather than have to negotiate a position with twenty seven other countries and actually the uk is going in a slightly different direction. america dealt with this very quickly.
if the uk had the power to deal with these things ourselves straight away we could not hide behind the european council.
if we were an independent self governing nation again in the united kingdom one of two things would happen either the conservative government would take action it would protect our industry it would put on those tariffs for itself and we would save those jobs in the uk.
it has cost thousands of jobs in redcar directly and thousands more in the supply chain.
or the government would sit on its hands refuse to help its own industry in which case we could jolly well vote them back out again in a couple of years' time at the next general election.
we should have been able to do the same.
and indeed would it even change anything because the eu anti dumping rules are very much based on the wto anti dumping rules.
it is a complex issue but one of the key components is chinese dumping on the world market.
but the signal is very clear.
i think we have time limits in front of us. as i told you the presidency has taken a few initiatives.
but let us not assume that this is just a problem only in the council.
i think we have to realise that in a europe where we work together and the issue of the qualified majority is there it is not always easy to find a consensus but since we are one economic bloc and one trading bloc we will have to succeed quicker on this and there i share some of your frustrations
first of all let me also say that i do not think it is a debate here between free traders or fair traders or protectionists.
that includes yes countering unfair trade practices but it also includes fighting protectionism and making the argument for trade as a means to create economic opportunities for workers consumers and companies.
we have a community of law we have a qualified majority on this issue and therefore because of the reasons that you mentioned and i therefore share your frustration on this because the world economy continues and the issue of overcapacity remains and our people are waiting for us in the light of the changed context resulting from chinese dumping practices and the crisis in the european union steel industry the presidency has reopened a discussion in the council on the draft regulation on the modernisation of the trade defence instruments.
we have to speed it up and i am very honest about it.
this was proposed by the presidency.
some of you have mentioned that.
there are quite a few different forms on that regarding antidumping and anti subsidy investigation proceedings and improving the methodology of calculating the injury and profit margins.
i think it is a very important signal also for the council and for the presidency work and i will come back to that in a second because i do understand very much the sense of urgency not only for the people the workers in europe but also because we have a time limit because of some aspects that you mentioned regarding the wto.
we need to ensure that the benefits of the global economy are widely shared also in europe.
i think we all share the concerns regarding the issue of the strengthening of our trade defence instruments in order to tackle unfair trade practices and distortions of competition as well as to ensure a global level playing field for the european union.
i think all of you have mentioned issues that are very very crucial to us.
our blind free trade policies have created massive unhappiness in our societies.
so what do we do?
we still debate the lesser duty rule. the lobby of importers and service dominated countries prefer free trade ideology over recognising that we must protect the few industries that use anti dumping.
in response to a similar threat the us has just adopted or imposed over five hundred of duties on chinese imports.
industries close down people lose jobs incomes drop.
the ground is shifting under our feet.
my understanding is that the uk is not opposing action on this it just wants to do it in a different way to the rest of the european union.
we would find out whether the british government is hiding behind that using it as an excuse back home or whether it really means it.
and no of course a uk that was free to make trade deals across the globe a uk that had our democracy back had our sovereignty back had control of our borders a uk that had the freedom to look at the wider world would not be a uk that would mired in nothingness.
it would be a uk for the future.
do you agree that one potential consequence of the failure to defend industries whether it is in the uk or in any other country in europe is that that can then mean that those industries are moved to countries with lower standards of regulation and therefore we end up virtually outsourcing pollution?
we are paying the price for paralysis and disagreement in council.
the council has no time to lose in finding agreement on trade defence instruments while avoiding protectionism because that is no way to strengthen open economies and fair trade.
let us also be well aware of the other side of the coin.
of course other factors such as low oil prices impact many including the steel industry.
so our group the liberal group is seeking an overall balanced trade defence instruments package to ensure fair trade globally not only vis vis china although it is an important player here.
mr president i would like to say to the minister that effective trade defences are a precondition to free and fair trade. the closure of the ssi steel plant in redcar in my constituency minister shows the human cost of your inaction in the council to ensure fair prices in global markets. our current trade defence instruments have been insufficient to shield our manufacturing industries particularly the steel industry from unfair competition and excess capacity. a majority of eu member states support their modernisation as do meps and the commission but in an example of how the eu does not force its will on member states the uk government and its allies have been able to block this reform for more than two years.
well today it is time for the uk to use its real influence in brussels to support the eu reforms needed by our communities rather than hindering them further. we do not need to hurt our industries anymore.
the clearest violations are the illegal transfer of six hundred zero israelis to live in illegal settlements in occupied palestine where one hundred and seventy zero acres of palestinian land have been confiscated since the oslo accord one thousand acres
on fact finding in the west bank we meps witnessed the south africanisation of palestine with its apartheid roads walls and buses.
after all what happened in gaza over fifty one days makes us look at article two of the eu israel association agreement which must be implemented.
those who make the law must uphold it.
international law imposes a duty on all members of the international community including the eu not to recognise as lawful or render aid or assistance in maintaining a situation created by a serious breach of international law.
allowing economic relations with israeli illegal settlements and importing their products into the eu contributes to the prosperity of those settlements and assists in their development all of which is contrary to obligations under international law.
these were crimes against humanity under international criminal law and international humanitarian law. recently thirteen meps were refused access to gaza because israel did not want us to see destruction there that is comparable to world war ii.
the eu must not simply discourage business relations with firms established in illegal settlements and only insist on correct labelling of settlement goods but must also halt all relations with israel and prohibit imports of its goods.
israel's violations of international law have been well documented on six occasions in fact by the un security council plus the international court of justice.
like many others who have spoken i believe the only solution is a two state solution but the combination of illegal israeli settlements in occupied east jerusalem and the west bank and the closure of the gaza strip makes it near impossible to achieve this.
until israel gets the message that the eu is prepared to act it will not listen to our words.
in fact every day every action by the israelis takes us further and further away from a two state solution and from a peaceful settlement.
we have to make sure that goods from the occupied territories do not enter the european union.
it stresses the positive roles for both the eu and the new palestinian unity government as brokers for peace and calls for the lifting of the illegal blockade of gaza extension of the permitted fishing zones and opening of the border crossing.
mr president the green group will not be supporting this joint resolution as it fails to properly address either the causes or the solutions to the conflict between israel and palestine. our alternative resolution highlights the gross disproportionality in the violence and the casualties of the gaza war and holds both sides to account.
finally we recognise the danger that israel's recent and largest land grab in thirty years represents to the palestinian interests and to the delivery of the two state solution. overall the joint resolution fails to call for any of those things.
do you really think that the european union should be on the side of a country which is prepared to sacrifice innocent civilians for its own political ends?
but most of all we should work with both israel and the palestinians towards the day when not even one gun is needed to preserve peace and security for all.
a child of six in gaza has now lived through three wars.
today our parliament must support the eu representative in insisting that there must be no return to the pre war status quo in gaza. the humanitarian crisis started not with the fifty days of operation protective edge but with the two thousand five hundred days of the blockade which preceded it.
nor did a minimum request for an ad hoc delegation by this very parliament to see the facts on the ground.
what is even more shocking is how little influence we in the eu have been able to yield.
despite the fact that we are israel's largest trading partner and palestine's largest aid donor we have been virtually absent from the palestinian conflict. we can and need to do more to find a permanent solution in this long and ongoing conflict.
we should not tolerate the collective punishment of palestinians.
we should therefore demand that israel open gaza's borders. israel must halt and withdraw from all illegal settlements which are currently undermining the two stage solution.
we must also support the investigation of war crimes.
he said to me madame we are drowning in our childrens blood. the israeli's and ourselves are drowning in our children's blood'.
on the contrary they have got worse it seems to me.
and i would try to encourage us to abandon the arithmetic of death and to engage in the difficult path to peace.
i believe that this is an important statement if this parliament makes it it means that we support the efforts of the high representative of the commission and of the council on the path to peace.
the west challenged by russia in an attempt to recover the so called losses incurred at the end of the cold war should speak with one voice in rebuffing russia's actions. this means that the eu should elaborate a new european security strategy; strengthen cooperation with nato rapidly finding a solution to the existing blockage;
perhaps the most significant is the uk's permanent seat on the un security council and the veto that goes with it.
mr president i am going to focus on paragraph forty six of the report. this says and i quote an eu seat in an enlarged un security council remains a central long term goal of the european union'.
let us be crystal clear.
it is in fact exactly the other way round.
in the european union the united kingdom has very little influence.
however the uk is represented in its own right in international organisations.
we have just.
the uk's continuing membership of the european union does not enhance our influence in the world.
this report and the thinking behind it puts at risk the uk's seat on the un security council and also the uk's veto.
later it calls for and i quote again the introduction of new members of the un security council and reform of the un security council's decision making towards the possible use of a super qualified majority'.
i can assure you that this parliament will support it but time is running short.
i know that commissioner georgieva has been successful in securing eur one hundred and fifty million in extra money for her budget.
the service is dealing with the outbreak of violence in south sudan with a peacebuilding mission.
but as i said while the isp is where it should be the money is not there to fund all these activities.
of the comprehensive approach that you have made your trademark.
this instrument is in danger of running out of money by the middle of this year. under your direction the external action service is doing its utmost to do its job and it does it brilliantly.
you are also in charge of the budget for the instrument for stability and peace those. two budget lines form the context of what you can do with the external action service. here i want to sound an alarm about the implementation
i want to raise one important issue in my capacity as the standing rapporteur for the committee on foreign affairs on the instrument for stability and peace.
in the central african republic the instrument for stability and peace will also contribute with an action focusing on communities at risk and policing.
what a waste of an appointment and what a waste of five years.
it also proposes that the method of voting and i quote should make use of a super qualified majority' which would have the effect of losing the veto.
what the report proposes is that the eu should have a seat.
would she also agree as further evidence that the european union should stop its military posturing that the latest eu csdp mission in the central african republic has failed to generate any serious support from european countries other than france and that the conclusion from this is also that the eu should stop trying to play soldiers?
the united states is being misled into thinking that the way to get european allies to share more of the defence burden is by involving the eu.
libya is going through terrible difficulties and actually one of the problems in terms of the structure of libya and how they are trying to develop their institutional framework is that it is very difficult to support libya in the ways that we normally do by which i mean trying to find the people who are in the right place with the right authority to do things.
so you have to think about how elements of our strategy interact with each other.
when we were holding the us eu energy council which secretary of state kerry and i chair we were making exactly the same points that have been made in this debate the need member states to work more closely together in an interconnected way and to think about energy supply energy diversity diversification in the context of climate change and environmental needs and the impact
i may not convince everybody but that is what the purpose of all this has
could be. this is not about
if you do not have stability and countries collapse then you have a greater need for humanitarian aid. so these are not in competition with each other and should not
secondly there are times when nato would not wish to be in the front line because of its very specific role and here it can look to the european union to help fulfil obligations.
one of the biggest challenges we face in our neighbourhood is the number of young people.
i recall that when i started four and a half years ago that actually in this city alone it was practically impossible to bring together people working on the same geographical area or indeed i would argue on the same set of issues.
that means thinking more creatively and in a sense more strategically about what it is we are trying to do. you can pour money into a problem. that is easy.
week. there are places where it is better to have an eu presence than a nato presence.
failed. the promotion of democracy respect for all individuals and the right of people to have their voices heard is a fundamental and crucial element of what all the nations that have become part of the european union stand for and of the aspirations of so many people who see the eu as a valuable force for the
it is extremely important that this debate continues.
in terms of the point that was made about the budgets the future and the question about humanitarian aid and the instrument for stability i come back to my point about comprehensiveness.
lives. they are now more and more interconnected with each other and unless we have good and strong policies to support those young people across our neighbourhood i think our societies are going to find it much tougher to be able to develop in the way that we would wish with peace and security at the heart of
if you add into that the work going on in the member states you can imagine the fragmentation that existed.
i also want to say that i agree with those who talked about security and development going together.
that. when we think about our neighbourhood we know that we have had dramatic change and that countries are still hugely at risk from what could happen.
know best; it is true for every single one represented
energy policy is also about foreign policy because we get our energy from many countries some of which are going through extremely difficult times. the supply of sweet oil from libya which is used by some countries for certain parts of their work for which they need oil supplies was badly disrupted.
nato. our purpose is to strengthen all that we do on defence.
we are not in competition with
we do. when i think about the lessons we have learned in these last three or four years about the way in which we need collaboration this is not about loss of sovereignty but about collaboration to ensure that we have the assets that are going to be needed in times of conflict times that are changing and yet seem now to remain the
council. it is an intergovernmental process at one level linked to a community method and developing and strengthening what that means for the roles that can be played not just by an individual but by a service and an approach that has been part of
so this approach was specifically designed to try to make sure that in using our resources we used them properly and well to bring together the work that we did and to have a greater and better impact on the range of challenges.
same. so they are different but they are complementary.
here. i wish you good luck and all the best for the
i have to tell you that without the support of parliament it is not by any means a guaranteed approach.
them. for those who are worried about how many people are in the service i have checked.
the institutional framework provided opportunities for people to develop their individual approach or their institutional approach but not a european union approach.
if you had sat as i did with many of the members from the african union nations who have been in brussels for the summit they will all tell you from their own experiences that unless you have security you cannot do development. they have to go hand in hand.
on defence there are some members of this house who i will never convince on aspects of defence so let me just say two or three things.
say. thirdly there is work to be done in support of what nato does and what
think about the communities that we are working with where there are huge numbers of young people who want a future and are looking for good educational opportunities employment prospects and the future development of their
i want to just pick up a few of the comments that have been made beginning with this concept of a comprehensive approach because i agree that if it becomes simply a catchword it is waste of time.
that means we have to rethink to some extent in a creative way both how we collaborate with the libyan people and the libyan authorities and how we work together internationally.
that is not me saying
people did not know each other.
it is very important that we get these agreements in place for
loss. this is about
one of the most important elements of this is complementarity.
to go. i hope that as this develops you will see the potential for what it can be supported by all member states because they are crucial and i am very proud of the support i get from the foreign affairs council and from the member states but also linked to the aspirations of what this
the basic choice is war or peace.
we all know the root of the tough russian reaction is aggressive nato expansionism first into poland next into ukraine.
yet you persist in irresponsible sabre rattling in someone else's natural sphere of influence.
members know full well that the so called ukrainian revolution was manufactured with everything from the agitprop to the snipers provided from the usa and the eu.
european states should therefore stop fomenting conflict in other countries that can cause devastating recession and dire poverty.
this is made worse by northern countries looting what talent they have generation after generation.
i am in favour of joint action but only when it is necessary.
this must be based on prior agreement on objectives and a genuine commonality of interests not a shared desire for aggressive adventurism. paragraph twenty five states that there is a strong link between development and conflict prevention.
of course the greatest reason for stagnation in the poorest of countries is a dearth of talent.
i know and i trust that you have been very present and very active but i am sorry to say that you have not been very visible.
did i get you right that the british veto is even more important than the british seat on the security council?
mr president enlargement remains our single most successful part of cfsp but it is a blunt instrument and i have come to the conclusion that in this next
i hope her successor will consider this parliament an ally and work with us closely to make sure we develop stronger european leadership in a world with an increasing amount of major challenges.
in our own neighbourhood from ukraine to turkey from egypt to syria cynical power politics are back and the eu has barely begun to shape up and act as a global player. for too long the euro crisis has overshadowed the other crisis that of europe's position in the world but it is more than ever clear that from trade to defence from human rights to development we must act strongly together or we stand divided on the sidelines.
we must rethink and rebalance interests and values and choose the side and the rights freedoms and opportunities of a global young generation.
european leadership begins in our neighbourhood. i hope this leadership will become stronger more tangible and comprehensive.
that has absolutely nothing to do with the debate in hand.