kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we negotiated hard but we are here today because we do understand that the transition to a carbonneutral economy can help address climate change improve our health and environment and can bring a new impulse to our countries' industrial competitiveness.
thank you for your different points of view and your ideas which many times allowed me to formulate and push for a strong position.
but anyway what's easy?
i am glad that we managed to achieve this.
four. zero once again allow me to thank commissioner arias caete for his participation and positive help in this legislation.
but they are just the beginning of a transitory path towards the economy of the future.
this is our opportunity to inject new life into the eu's manufacturing sector create new skilled jobs and boost economic growth in industry.
at the end of the day we managed to successfully close a number of loopholes that would otherwise have weakened the legislation.
the road was not always easy and we had to overcome some tough lobbying and initial opposition even from some member states.
acknowledging the importance of new infrastructure the legislation is echoing parliament's position pushing for more investment to develop recharging infrastructure all over europe and in favour of mobilising and incentivising significant public and private investment.
the new law means fuel savings for consumers and will make it affordable to buy zero and low emission vehicles in the years to come.
this fund is aimed to achieve a climateneutral economy without negative social implications and in particular to support workers in the european car manufacturing industry a key priority for myself and my political group the sd.
the legislation aimed at reducing co two emissions for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles is part of this whole transition.
this legislation will help european union industry to retain its leading competitive position in a fast changing global market with a demand for clean products and business models that support sustainable mobility and is increasingly significant.
let me congratulate you again for your determination and success in concluding parliament's firstreading position in a timely manner.
in that context i am confident that the existence of any selfstanding financial instrument does not add more significance to any particular eu policy.
of the implementation policy of our financial instruments.
i insist that this will be best done within the proposed ndici architecture by safeguarding and ringfencing the specific measures and the political importance of each geographical and thematic policy including human rights and democracy.
also let me stress again that the dac ability target and the spending targets as proposed by the commission strike the right balance.
this will allow us to start negotiations as soon as the council is ready.
in our view any amendment that might undermine let alone dismantle a coherent structure of the ndici instrument as supported by the report would only contribute to inconsistency and contradictions between our policy goals and our financial capacity to carry them forward.
it just goes without notice without anyone passing comment that this is now decided here.
for what it's worth i think there is a strong case for being permanently in summertime in the uk where we're attached to rules that reflect working patterns of a much earlier generation.
i tell you if that were to happen and there were to be another european election i can't imagine that there would be many labour meps returned precious few tories either for that matter. isn't it extraordinary though that everyone takes it for granted that this is now an eu decision that the issue of what time zone you're in is no longer utterly for the member state involved?
it does seem to me a strange comment on how stealthily the idea of a european policy has increased over the last twenty years;
the protests thankfully have so far been peaceful protests with young people taking to the streets because they believe in something different to what the algerian government at present is offering.
all i'd ask is that in all of these discussions in all of these debates please can we remember that christians and other religious minorities are being persecuted in algeria as these matters are being discussed in the coming days.
i want to mention the persecution of religious minorities in algeria and specifically christians because i've met algerian pastors on two occasions who have come to the european parliament to express their concerns about how they are being persecuted at present.
that they want to be able to express themselves in ways that they've not been able to do of late.
the one point that i want to make specifically today that has perhaps not been raised yet in this debate is that freedom of speech must also imply freedom of religion.
one of the key comments that we see time and time again from people in algeria is that they desperately want freedom of speech;
but the situation is incredibly serious we've got the army chief calling for bouteflika to be declared unfit to govern.
we have seen the government using various administrative means to close down churches and we have seen those who have preached on social media put in prison.
algeria has moved from number forty two to number twenty two on the world watch list of most persecuting countries of christians in just one year.
we've seen those who convert to christianity being persecuted.
it's not all brightness and light however.
as is the case for the reserve in the current edf the cushion would give us the necessary capacity to respond timely and efficiently to the type of unexpected needs that are so common in external action in the neighbourhood and beyond.
key. in this regard the foreign policy needs and priorities component for rapid response actions should be maintained in the non programmable pillar.
a frank and substantive dialogue both at political and technical level with parliament is indeed our objective in full respect of the interinstitutional balance.
i look forward to the debate and to tomorrow's vote and i thank you so much.
i believe however that such targets should be aspirational and not legally binding obligations.
this process can only translate into the intended results if it is kept flexible.
in the context of the inclusion of neighbourhood policy financing in the ndici instrument that the commission unanimously proposed and maintained let me underline this point again a streamlined more efficient architecture of our external spending
europe's voice in the world will be louder and its priorities better served through this instrument priorities such as the neighbourhood sub saharan africa eradication of poverty sustainable development migration promoting human rights and democracy fighting climate change and preserving peace. i am also glad to see parliament retained investment as one of the modalities that should be mobilised to pursue these objectives. i am personally convinced that the budgetisation of the european development fund will considerably enhance the european parliament's legislative budgetary and scrutiny roles. overall i think all these elements will contribute to ensuring that the new instrument meets our objectives and commitments made in the context of the european union's global strategy the new european consensus on development and the global two thousand and thirty agenda.
does not call into question the political importance of any single geographical or thematic policy. on the contrary we want to maximise the impact of each policy while improving our ability to mobilise additional resources where they are needed the most. this is particularly important in response to unforeseen developments for instance in our neighbourhood. in our vision programming is the process that will ensure the link between the implementation of the sustainable development goals the european union's interests external action interests and the interest of our partners.
i also welcome the political ambition of the report to focus on major priorities like human development and the fight against climate change.
otherwise they risk constraining our external activities in a complex and ever changing context.
indeed it is important to keep a sufficient degree of flexibility to fulfil the european union's ambitions in the area of conflict prevention and peace or in our cooperation with industrialised countries.
the commission is ready to engage with parliament in order to explore how best to enhance its role of steering and oversight.
however i think that creating additional layers of institutional control and making excessive use of delegated acts will not achieve that objective.
i do not believe therefore that unallocated funds for the cushion for emerging challenges and priorities should be reduced nor should their mobilisation become more complex.
keeping sufficient flexibility is
we have listened to the different views and respect all of them.
it is time to step up and make european copyright law fit for the digital age.
we understand that there are different voices and different opinions.
a modernised legal environment for copyright will improve their access to european arts entertainment and quality journalism.
voting down the directive will not take away upload filters.
this is a major improvement on the current situation.
to be clear upload filters are not mentioned in the text of the directive but as we all know they are already used by big platforms.
culture is what european societies are built on. it is at the source of our values and our inspiration. the ultimate beneficiaries of this directive will be europe's citizens.
this vote is also about the eu's ability to tackle the complex and important legal challenges of the online environment.
this is normal in such an important debate.
on one side i'm hearing from huge numbers of ordinary people who are concerned about the future of their internet and on the other side we've got cocktail receptions slick advertising even saw a taxi on the way here advocating this legislation.
it will push one size fits all enforcement upon platforms across europe despite national copyright law being different from one country to the next.
please listen to your constituents on this. please don't make the chasm between this parliament and the people of the united kingdom the people of europe any wider than it already is.
many of you here are true believers in the european project all i can say is what i see from the united kingdom british people's opinions on this place haven't changed very much people who supported remain still support remain people who voted leave still support leave generally speaking but i have had people come to me to tell me that they voted to remain in two thousand and sixteen but now would vote leave because of the copyright directive.
but the big players are the ones with the money to lobby and i care far more about the voices and views of my constituents about ordinary people than the views of lobbyists who are paid to tell us what they want us to think.
but this legislation in particular articles eleven and thirteen does not deliver that balance.
now of course what we need is a balance between protecting creators of copyrighted material and protecting the lawful rights of citizens going about their daily business.
in other european countries if you vote for this today you will drive a wedge between the european union and young people across europe.
it is classic end of term legislation.
you can't deal with that minefield so legal content will end up being treated as though it is illegal.
it is fundamentally illiberal because in practice tech companies will end up treating citizens as guilty until proven innocent on copyright content will end up being removed automatically.
i would like to urge my colleagues to vote to delete these articles.
the last time we voted in september there were several alternatives on the table. now that is not the case.
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
it is clear that the rights of creators need to be protected but creators and rightholders are not the same and we need to consider that this proposal is not balanced.
faced with russia's violations of international law ukraine is not alone. we have stood by our associated partner and continue to
unity. we have also identified possible areas for further eu support for the ukrainian regions severely affected by the russian inspection regime in the azov
and the leaders and members of their community have been persecuted. we will continue to call for the immediate and unconditional release of oleh sentsov who received the sakharov prize last year and whose picture outside the european parliament reminds the people who walk by every day about his dedication.
this unacceptable situation also stems from the construction of the kerch bridge without ukraine's consent.
we will also take every opportunity to raise individual cases publicly and bilaterally with our russian interlocutors.
we expect russia to ensure unhindered and free passage of all ships through the kerch strait to and from the azov sea in accordance with international law. we welcome ukraine's approach to seeking justice such as the ongoing case under un convention on the law of the sea. in addition to the negative consequences of the illegal annexation and the security situation in the region we deplore systematic restrictions of fundamental freedoms and violations of human rights in the peninsula
voters should take note of which meps and which parties voted for this directive and they should vote against them on twenty three may.
if meps vote for this directive then they deserve to lose their seats.
it is also about controlling and shutting down free speech and dissent not approved of by the media and political establishments.
ukip meps and others forced a vote on this directive using the rules of procedure otherwise it would have gone through on the nod last year. members should take note that the european elections will follow shortly.
the european union and the political and media establishments want to suppress free speech and dissent.
not only do we need to enhance our collective foreign and security capabilities as the world's leading donor we really do need to review our current way of funding projects with partner countries.
will the commission engage in a substantive and thorough review of working with partners and host countries pushing for a performance based approach?
my takeaways on two thousand and seventeen discharge are that the eu needs to visibly become a stronger and more effective global actor.
it would dilute thematic concentration and encourage sectoral project based investments rather than an integrated approach based on territorial strategies.
the commission has proposed that the common provisions regulation should continue to regulate the link with economic governance through the principle of macro economic conditionality.
member states where relations between national regional and local partners are based on trust and open dialogue could easily achieve that.
however as much as we share the objectives we do not always agree on the best tools to achieve them.
we can only regret that the may elections are already so close that despite this great effort the timing of the first reading will not permit trilogues to start during the term of this parliament.
climate change connectivity and social infrastructure.
this is why the ambitious levels of thematic concentration should be maintained.
i look forward to a fruitful debate and thank you.
the commission has proposed to exclude from funding a few areas which were evaluated as having low impact and eu added value for example investment in landfills or could have a long term lock in effect preventing the achievement of agreed eu or international goals for example investment in fossil fuels.
we are afraid that parliament's amendments could result in inefficiencies of investments. finally the commission would like to stress that provisions related to the implementation of the stability and growth pact should not be introduced through sectoral legislation.
redefining the content of specific objectives as proposed by the parliament notably in relation to broadband urban mobility tourism natural resources and sports would have significant policy implications.
on the contrary it allowed for greater flexibility in setting up regional concentration thresholds as richer regions could compensate for poorer ones.
so if one country is more focused on rule of law issues they should have the opportunity to invest more.
so finally thank you again for helping us to launch this eur.
this new programming dynamic will help us continue our support to turkey but allow us to adapt to the evolving situation and reflect developments in our relations with the country.
others might be more focused on transport but at the end of the day which means the accession day they have to align with all the different elements in order to get quasiapproval from us the member states to accept a new member state.
we set priorities and schemes rather than country envelopes allowing us to reward performance and progress towards key priorities and to increase flexibility to respond to the evolving needs of the partners in the path towards accession. this means indeed if there
first of all i would like to thank you for this discussion. my take away from the discussion is that we have many areas of agreement and we look forward to continue working constructively.
in our experience they are always able to prepare projects but sometimes in this thematic area and sometimes in another one.
mr president i voted against this report.
indeed brake says that four hundred and fifty lives a year could be saved by such a move.
it would create savings in carbon emissions and lighter nights would boost outdoor tourism and leisure activities.
i have no problem with the clocks going backwards and forwards but i believe that britain should go onto double summertime bst throughout the winter and an extra hour forward in the summer. shifting an hour of daylight from mornings to the end of the working day would be better for tired drivers.
levels. let me conclude by inviting you to support this ambitious and balanced agreement when voted tomorrow.
so my dear german friends i think you have to take your efforts and your technological knowledge and do something real to change the grid.
in the middle of the night we waited for a call from berlin.
some facts about the background.
i can tell you my seven yearold diesel with renewable second generation advanced biofuel produces less co two emissions per kilometre than an electrical car in germany.
so the real problem is actually what kind of mix we have in the grid and if we don't make a really great effort to change the mix in the grid in the future we will fail.
listen the whole world is watching us today and everyone comes down in the plenary and holds their own homemade speeches and we don't have a debate on such a crucial topic because you're preventing it.
co two emissions from transport are increasing and efforts to improve the fuel efficiency of new cars are slowing so we must demand a lot more from the sector.
however what is disappointingly clear from the final agreement between the council and parliament is that the council and eu ministers are happy to water down bold environmental legislation that aims to tackle one of the eu's biggest polluting sources.
we need to stop striking political compromises where the science sets us the limits.
however some aspects like diversity are often neglected.
it is highly unlikely i will be here in the ninth legislature but i would urge this house to ensure that we address this injustice.
it was with president nicole fontaine.
like climate change it is a race we can win.
the credibility of this parliament depends on it.
twenty years later surprisingly she remains the one and only female president of this house.
two with this in mind the report introduces two new types of benchmarks and encourages investments to be channelled towards those who are on a decarbonisation trajectory.
we claim to be global leaders when it comes to equality. many female members of this house leave to become ministers prime ministers commissioners yet in these twenty years we've had no female commission president we've had no female president of the european parliament and we've had no female leader of the big political groups.
yes it is but the eu allocates on the basis of economic need not political preference.
my region has long benefited from substantial investment from the european regional development fund a billion pounds of eu funding between two thousand and fourteen two thousand and twenty bringing vital resources creating jobs upgrading our infrastructure and supporting local business.
if we stay the northeast is guaranteed millions of pounds.
that is still very weak spot in the commission proposal.
we put some proposals on the table a steering group between the external action service and the commission and it's not a secret that that cooperation can be improved but we also looked at how to ensure more conditionality to the billions of euros suggested under a so called flexible amount.
but what i've been hammering for from that day on is that the only way we could actually assess whether the proposed new so called architecture that merges various funding lines into one would be more fit for purpose is if we knew how the money would be governed.
we are a values and rules based union and that should be reflected in the foreign affairs budget too.
georgia eastern ukraine and crimea are showing us without any uncertainty that the russian federation is having no second thoughts about changing the borders in europe by other means than peaceful if they can.
because of our fear of russia?
i don't know why but i do know that it poses a real question here.
and that leaves us with the just one possibility we must act together and with firmness because all other answers negotiation appeasement some kind of compromise will be perceived in the kremlin as a weakness. so it is time to send a loud and clear message
since many years ago we have seen an increasingly aggressive russia.
today i have not changed my belief and let me say that all attempts aimed at impeding investments that could make some activities like co generation and district heating more efficient are simply irrational. at the same time when it comes to investment in gas to replace morepolluting fossil fuels
in short this is a directive well worth voting for and i will be pleased to do so.
finally member states will still be permitted to improve on this directive in key areas such as extending the reversal of burden of proof and protecting the short term right to reject defective goods.
more generally article fourteen provides that repairs or replacements for defective goods must be free of charge.
other good points include that article twenty requires member states to take appropriate measures to inform consumers of their rights.
as has been said the new rights for sales of goods that function with software are very important and include rules protecting consumers who rely on updates for their smart phones or other devices that are connected to the internet.
i urge member states to do so.
i am really glad that members who originally proposed less ambition today are speaking about this compromise positively because i am convinced that it was the initial ambition of this parliament that changed things.
and we had mr klmel from the ecr who has not even realised that this is part of a whole package of legislation which addresses different sectors and that this parliament doesn't focus on mobility or passenger vehicles alone.
i would have expected some of the members speaking tonight to know the details of what we are going to vote upon tomorrow.
with all due respect all the studies that we were shown even the impact assessment by the commission itself confirmed the financial benefits for consumers as mentioned just now by the commissioner himself when he was speaking about a decrease in consumer expenditure.
things have changed from a couple of months ago to today.