kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
with the commission's and the european parliament's consent two thirds of the european institutions will recognise their effort and progress. i want to see the council also fulfilling its promise so that finally bosnian and albanian people will see that there is light at the end of the long tunnel.
the european commission and we in parliament want to lift this isolation.
we promised the countries visa liberalisation when they fulfilled the criteria.
significant progress has been made in securing the borders and improving cooperation in combating cross border crime like human trafficking and drug trafficking and it will be possible to return persons who are illegally staying on european soil.
the last thing we want is a black hole in europe.
the european commission concluded that both countries have fulfilled the benchmarks for visa liberalisation.
they will have the chance to look over the walls of their own country.
having a chance to freely travel to the eu is not only a practical advantage but it has also in many cases taken away psychological barriers and reconnected people. this has also proved that the principle of conditionality used by the european union for visa liberalisation has worked well and brought positive results. yet the eu also needs to keep up its credibility and commitment.
mr president visa liberalisation is an important step for any country seeking a closer relationship with the european union.
making it easier for bona fide citizens of third countries to visit the eu for business and tourism is an important part of integrating these countries with our own union.
however we must eventually give all countries in the western balkans an equal opportunity to achieve this status if they qualify for it.
but we should be insistent on all of these countries reaching and maintaining high standards of passport biometric security.
visa liberalisation is a privilege and not an automatic right which can be taken for granted.
as for kosovo concerns still remain about the quality of passport security and organised crime.
until these questions are fully answered kosovo must necessarily remain outside the scope of our policies.
even though five eu countries do not recognise it this alone should not be a reason not to grant kosovo as a territory the right to freedom of travel to the european union.
hopefully there will be a big majority tomorrow in the plenary and that will send a signal to the people of these two countries that the elected members of the european parliament strongly support their wish to travel more freely in the european union.
i can reassure you once again that the benchmarks have been met.
we have been monitoring very closely.
we will of course remain in contact and monitor this but they have been fulfilled.
the process has been as transparent as possible.
kosovo is of course also a very important partner in this.
they have made a lot of progress but still in order to be credible the commission has to watch over all the benchmarks and all the conditions if we want to have credibility and legitimacy for this process.
we are working with them.
i know that they are making great efforts on the government side on readmission and on the reintegration of forced returnees.
they need to do more.
once these conditions are met we are of course ready to enter into a more formal visa dialogue with them.
it is not only a diplomatic present which we offer along the way'.
but he went on apparently to say that france would request security guarantees from the two countries.
that it is a right for short term travel for tourism for exchanges for business and so on and it is not for other purposes including work.
but just to come back to that point about security in the broadest sense.
the european union is about security in the broadest sense and this is part of the whole exercise of opening up minds of fighting nationalism of fighting ethnic conflict of building a continent on peace and prosperity and that is what we want to open up the eyes of the citizens of those countries to. we are all in this together and we hope to prepare them to become members of the european union because the european union is a security project.
we made this deal.
we said if you jump through these hoops you will get visa free travel.
if france or any other member state had doubts about this journey they should never have given support to the visa liberalisation road map.
they must not now fail this promise.
incoherence partners illegality and while this report refers to people not having enough food plans to reform the cap propose measures which will cut food production in some of europe's best farmland.
when will common sense prevail?
for the commission nothing can ever stop.
to quote the danish parliament the legal basis cited by the commission is incorrect.
only the commission could make me feel sorry for french farmers.
it is my opinion that we need to take account of the change in circumstances and recognise that this programme belongs to social policy and not the common agricultural policy.
two thousand and thirteen tomorrow we are only voting on a transitional solution to unlock the short term deadlock.
we will have to find a proper agreed solid basis for the long term future of this programme.
however the situation we face today concerning next year's budget for the programme is unsustainable.
if we do not accept this temporary deal the risk is clear money available to charities in twenty member states will drop from eur five hundred million to eur one hundred and thirteen million next year leaving over eighteen million poor and in need.
i will support the compromise found between the institutions at the vote tomorrow.
however it is important to stress that this deal can in no way serve as the foundation for the future of the programme beyond.
that cannot be allowed to happen in twenty one st century europe especially at this time of crisis.
why change it because of an ideological objection?
if anything the numbers requiring food aid will increase given the current economic situation.
however the thirteen million people who rely on this scheme for food are not going to find an alternative in two years' time.
that is all very fine but forty three million people in the eu are at risk of food poverty. we have a scheme in place that provides food for these people.
my difficulty with this proposal lies in its assumption that creating a eur five hundred million programme centrally is an adequate or efficient response to hunger. i believe that measures of this type should be delivered by individual member states in ways which are administratively efficient.
by the continuation of this scheme under the guise of solidarity we do nothing to encourage an efficient and productive food industry in europe.
aid in kind is contentious across the world and i seen no reason why it should go unchallenged here in europe.
the continuation of such a programme for twenty five years is not evidence of its success but evidence of the development of the dependence culture that should be broken.
to buy the food and distribute it will be very expensive so as i have said there must be a better way.
just to clarify for mr tarabella i would prefer it to be moved back to member states' responsibility but i recognise that this is not going to be the case.
therefore i support the commission's proposals that we maybe deliver it at a european level but through the legal basis of social policy and not through the common agricultural policy.
we are putting this to full use in the horn of africa and in the southern neighbourhood.
the breadth of eu instruments can be usefully combined with the depth of nato's role on defence.
csdp has a vital role to play in addressing forms of organised crime such as trafficking of drugs of weapons and of course of people.
member states' initiatives such as the weimar initiative and subsequent contributions have provided an added impetus to work.
the budgetary constraints force us to save but they are also a driver of closer collaboration;
when the service was launched in january two thousand and eleven the arab spring required our immediate response.
in the area of security and defence the relationship with nato is essential.
i also want to foster closer cooperation with other partner countries including contributors and the neighbours to the south and to the east. i would like to end my remarks with the possible way forward.
this is a good first step towards more substantial achievements next spring also in view of the nato chicago summit which i will attend.
of. two thousand and twelve force generation by the way means getting the right people in the right
it set out the parameters for further work both in terms of hardware our military and civilian capabilities and software how we plan and conduct operations and engage with our partners.
the european parliament's support in the last months has been essential on this and i would like to take this opportunity to express to all of you my
at the meeting of one december we also agreed that the eu needs to improve its operations by more clearly identifying needs and acting with clear objectives and clear exit strategies.
we work hand in hand in many theatres and we owe it to our people in the field. i am also pleased to confirm that on capabilities in particular whether labelled pooling and sharing or smart defence we have now achieved an unprecedented level of cooperation.
the council undertook to make every effort to address this challenge and i will examine innovative ways to improve force generation in order to make proposals in the first half
multinational cooperation must become the rule rather than the exception in order to preserve and develop europe's defence capabilities.
term. we also have to enhance the effectiveness of missions and operations. the eu should act through csdp missions and operations to add value on the basis of identified needs with clear objectives and exit strategies to deliver and sustain results. as long as we can deliver on the existing missions i am always ready to take forward work on possible new
as the head of the european defence agency i will continue to make every effort to facilitate cooperation among and between member states and to increase the global competitiveness and efficiency of the european defence industry.
let it be. it relies on collective political will and ambition
this has resulted in both the increased focus on pooling and sharing of military capabilities and in the current staff shortfalls we are experiencing in important csdp missions and operations.
all of this has been achieved using and restructuring the existing resources and improving their flexibility and efficiency rather than by seeking other expensive and complex solutions.
i have worked hard to establish a good close working relationship with nato secretary general rasmussen to bring the eu and nato closer through a pragmatic step by step approach while maintaining the overall objective of a true organisation to organisation relationship.
for example the security threats in the sahel also relate to the influx of weapons and militias as a result of changes in libya. on this the combination of all of the european union's tools in a coherent strategy is absolutely essential.
we need to be able to respond to the complex threats of today crises from cyber threats energy security and others and we need to assume our global responsibilities whilst showing real value for money.
these structures are central to our capacity to respond and maintain their direct reporting line to me while working closely with the rest of the service.
this will allow us to test this tool with a view to strengthening civilian military synergies and again to draw lessons for the future.
i have also personally engaged on security and defence with our strategic partners not least regarding areas like the horn of africa or in libya.
but the demand for the eu to do more and better is getting stronger.
we have also improved the early warning capacity through the situation room and the conflict prevention group and we are currently exploring how to strengthen the security policy expertise in eu delegations.
the two organisations can and should reinforce each other's work.
these are directly linked to conflict.
to deliver value for money we need csdp action to be based on coherent and effective strategies and a truly comprehensive approach and equipped with the right capabilities as was restated in the foreign affairs council on one december.
in light of this experience we have set up the crisis management board and crisis platform which also dealt effectively with crisis situations in ivory coast libya and the horn of africa.
we are now beginning planning for the activation of the operations centre for the horn of africa operations by the next foreign affairs council in january.
the un remains of course a longstanding partner and we are turning this partnership into reality in theatres where both are or could be engaged in afghanistan somalia kosovo and libya and through our strategic dialogue.
the libya crisis again showed clear need for this.
we have to pay constant attention to force generation and capabilities.
in july i presented a comprehensive report on csdp.
to act. it also means that the cfsp budget should be able to respond to the financial aspects of force generation.
place. work on military capabilities should continue towards a systematic pooling and sharing not only as an answer to financial constraints but also as means of enhanced operational effectiveness in the long
some people try and say that we are facing some sort of fatigue on csdp yet this year has been a year of intensive work on this area with concrete results and ending with comprehensive and i believe forward looking council conclusions.
the european parliament alongside national parliaments and governments plays an important role in ensuring the democratic oversight of eu foreign security and defence policy as recognised in my declaration on political accountability. i want to focus for a moment on some important achievements during the course of this year.
we are turning a comprehensive approach into comprehensive action and i believe the external action service is uniquely placed for this. we can join up all of the instruments of the european union and cover conflict prevention development and conflict resolution.
i think we have to further operationalise the comprehensive approach by better linking our conflict prevention mediation development and conflict resolution activities.
i am pleased too that we found a pragmatic way forward on the issue of the planning and conduct of csdp operations.
whether on pooling and sharing of defence assets joint programming of development aid or solidarity in the evacuation of european nationals from scenes of conflict or disaster. the message is clear doing better with less. the one december foreign affairs council endorsed my call to maximise synergies and strengthen cooperation complementing instead of duplicating each other. i am committed to ensuring that the actions by the external action service the commission and the eu member states reinforce rather than compete with each other.
at the level of structures we have established the external action service and it is now equipped to deal with crises better faster and smarter.
i believe that we have achieved a lot of progress in working with our partners.
how best to make sure that we are able to respond to some of the crises and security threats that we are faced with as individual nations as parliamentarians and as institutions.
a number of people have talked about the horn of africa and the incredible work that the atalanta mission does made up of different member states which very willingly bring together their expertise their ships and their helicopters led by the british in northwood very effectively by admiral potts currently serving
throughout all of these operations we work very closely with nato.
finally a word for mrs dodds because she asked me a very specific question about whether we should make sure that those doing lonely complex jobs in places like afghanistan actually have the procedures that will help them and that we should get the procedures right.
member states freely and willingly want to engage together in a way in which they think they can be effective which is to provide this kind of police support.
first of all i agree with all those who say that most of our work should be preventative that the mediation the work we do on conflict prevention and using resources to try to prevent conflicts and prevent problems is absolutely right.
so all i would say to those who are worried about the overlap is that we work incredibly hard to make sure that does not exist and we respond to the support that nato needs and the way in which member states want to take this forward.
as we move to what for us is the christmas and holiday season i am very conscious that men and women are serving across the world and especially as was mentioned in afghanistan.
perhaps the best example to illustrate this is what is happening currently in kosovo with eulex kosovo providing what is called the second response line police officers willing to go in to try to stop the kind of violence that we have witnessed recently in the north of kosovo working hand in hand with kfor with the nato forces which are there as the third response unit.
again that is complementary to those engaged in theatre in other ways.
again improvised explosive devices are a problem that affects not only our servicemen and women from all over the world in afghanistan but in many other parts of the world too.
it is really vital that we understand what it is we want to try to achieve and how best to go about it.
let me remind honourable members that we have monitoring missions operating in georgia as a result of the crisis that georgia faced when russia behaved as it did in august.
they need a comprehensive approach to help them do this and that means thinking about how to support them in a security way as well.
it is worth remembering the kind of missions that our people are currently engaged in and how those missions work effectively with others that are also operating in the field not least nato.
i do not have to remind anyone that as you look around at what is happening in countries to which we are close or where we are operating there are many issues to be concerned about as i was especially aware when i met the four ministers from the sahel over the last few days.
this is an international operation because the dangers and difficulties of what has happened between serbia and kosovo required us all to provide an international response.
i agree with what has also been said about the need to be extremely proud of the servicemen and women who are operating in theatre at the present time.
indeed when we were involved with nato in discussing how best we could support what was occurring in libya nato was very conscious of being engaged in a military fashion yet needing others to think about how to engage military assets the kind of equipment that you need in order to support humanitarian aid.
in command from northwood and actually playing a vital role in ensuring that the world food programme can deliver food to people who are literally starving and helping to support countries which are grappling with how to tackle piracy off their coasts the threat that poses for individuals the threat of hostage taking and hijacking and the threat for those who rely on tourism.
i agree with that wholeheartedly.
mr president this has been an interesting and i think very important debate not least because in the context of looking at the economic situation that member states and institutions find themselves in it is absolutely vital that we discuss
if you can provide a joined up way of actually looking at how you can identify where those explosive devices might be who might have made them the kind of signature that is left by those who make bombs of different kinds if you can do that you can save lives everywhere.
two thousand and eight we still have people now who are helping to make sure that there is confidence built on the borders and making sure that people are able to go about their business in an ordinary way.
i agree with those who say we also need to think about cyber defence and the importance of how we might respond to that.
i think that in the modern world we have seen greater freedom for people to travel and that also has opened up greater opportunities for terrorists and criminals to engage in their activities. for that reason i think we should be looking at a broader role for defence forces in particular in counteracting the activities of criminal gangs and terrorists; and often these are interlinked. if i might give an example
our concern here instead should be more military capability and greater solidarity in nato.
i am afraid that the very real threats and challenges that we face will not be resolved by trying to apply the same procedures to defence as we have seen applied to the euro.
its ambition is a dangerous wasteful distraction.
no one wanted an eu military involvement neither the united nations nor indeed nato and the libyan experience revealed very starkly the potential dangers of the pooling and sharing concept which seemed so attractive to eu policymakers.
this report trots out the eurocrats' line their desperate quest for an invented strategic autonomy of the european union when actually we should be ensuring that our armed forces have the capabilities and interoperability to deploy alongside our closest and strongest military ally which is the united states.
of the twenty eight countries who agreed nato operations over libya less than half actually participated and fewer than a third were willing to participate in strike missions.
how could you expect a country such as the united kingdom or indeed france to rely on someone else to provide a vital military capability on our behalf?
what sort of example is that?
the libyan crisis should have provided more than enough evidence that csdp was irrelevant.
the european union should stop meddling in defence.
it is all about european integration.
that means serious operational commitment and political will two elements sadly lacking in so many european countries.
the economic and financial cuts added to this are pushing europe into a defence trap' where we will be unable to meet our present and future commitments should we not do something about it.
given europe's special status as a continent split asunder by war over hundreds of years we have a responsibility to maintain some coordination of our common security.
but perhaps you need to correct that before you start criticising.
as a former treasurer of cnd you are talking about security policy with nations that have nuclear weapons.
you are not competent for this position.
this is indeed all happening in nato so why is the european union trying to do things? why is the european union trying to replicate nato?
why is it setting up institutions which merely duplicate those which already exist at nato?
the great merit of nato however is that it is an intergovernmental alliance and sovereign nations can choose whether or not they participate in particular operations.
and we do not have pooling and sharing we have common command arrangements when there are nato operations.
what we need are solid reliable allies.
when the going gets tough they have got to turn out even when it is politically difficult.
they have to come up with the fighting capability and they have to be prepared to stick it out.
now while this debate centres mostly on doing more with less by pooling and sharing and by cooperation i would like to concentrate on the need to limit and eventually do away with the most lethal of all weaponry i mean nuclear weaponry. it sometimes seems as if the whole issue of weapons control and especially nuclear weapons control
let alone the issue of denuclearisation has gone away.
it is really a point of information.
second europe is increasingly forced to sell its assets and not always to a friendly buyer.