kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we both want to see peace in afghanistan and we are both actively supporting the afghan government's efforts to bring forward the peace process.
but even when our starting point is not the same there is still room for working together and building win win solutions.
trade but on all issues when we disagree with
world. we know that at this moment in world history cooperation and engagement are simply the smartest choice and that on some global and also some regional issues if the european union and china work together this makes the difference in the
only if we engage together with china can we make our interests our goals our vision and our connectivity converge. both the european union and china are part of the world's economic g three together with the
we want european investment to create quality jobs to increase peace stability and good governance in human rights and to focus in particular on opportunities for women and youth.
as you know whenever we europeans bring new investment to africa we always bear in mind the sustainable development goals.
the european union and china are two of the great powers of the world of today and we don't always see eye to eye. on the contrary we have some fundamental disagreements.
usa. the choice ahead of us is straightforward.
everybody knows that china is already a major player in africa.
take investment in africa as an example.
our cooperation is already intense on most foreign policy matters we're working together to preserve the nuclear deal with iran; we both support the ongoing negotiations towards a reconciled and denuclearised korean peninsula;
fair. this is the only way to achieve a solution that benefits both europe and china instead of going for a loselose trade conflict.
that. on the contrary we will continue to engage with china precisely to advance our values and our interests because europe and china recognise and understand each other's importance in shaping a more cooperative global
we have agreed to step up our cooperation to reduce emissions and implement the paris agreement.
i believe we share the same approach here with china now on the need to find or to build cooperative winwin solutions and approaches rather than entering on or fuelling the conflictual trends we are seeing. dialogue and engagement are the best way forward for us not just on
today. we recognise each other as fundamental key players on the global stage of today's
as you can tell from these examples china sees the european union now not just as a huge market and an investor not just an economic player the traditional view but also increasingly as a global political player and a global security provider.
our choice is clear.
we also focused on the situation in xinjiang especially the expansion of political re education camps and we discussed the detention of human rights defenders including particular cases. we know that the chinese government does not share all our principles and values and they know that we are in different places in some
world. your report mr belder rightly points out that china is a complex partner and our engagement takes different forms on different issues but we should not be afraid of a more proactive and a more confident
but as two global powers we both understand that our cooperation is essential to address the main challenges we face.
i believe we must not be afraid to engage with china creating synergies between their initiative and our projects on connectivity. we believe that big infrastructure projects should first of all create opportunities and jobs in all the countries along the new silk road and that these projects should be about sustainable development for local communities and not about crafting new spheres of influence.
during the last eu china human rights dialogue we spoke up against the recent restrictions on freedom of religion on minorities' rights and on freedom of association and expression.
order. it is a dialogue based on clarity on respect and on our interests and values and it can be one that benefits both europe and china as well as the rest of the
even if we come from different starting points we can explore the possibilities for trilateral cooperation among europe china and africa and find common fields of work that are beneficial for all.
enormous billboard campaigns against brussels against the commission against parliament against the commission president against soros on the sidelines but that is not really relevant in the brussels context apart from the fact that we are all apparently doing the bidding of mr soros.
other people apparently did.
others have accepted favours.
and i am not comfortable with this discourse because the christian democracy that i want to belong to is a christian democracy that accepts the secular state.
it is the fact that people have voted with their feet.
essentially to make a few people close to you richer every year and having for the rest the hungarian economy which is probably glad that seven hundred zero people have left over the last ten years because otherwise they would be in the country and unemployed.
the only reason why unemployment is where it is is not the prowess of the government;
europe has to be brussels and brussels is not good for the country. because it would impose migration because it would impose certain functioning measures and certain democratic standards probably because it would also be looking after its money. and honestly i am sick and tired of seeing eur five billion go every year
i do not think he is less good at religion and less good at christianity than you are and he is not feeling comfortable any longer.
i noticed one thing and that is that today you are even more behaving like the leader of a sect than ever before.
the only thing i know is that i never had a study grant from him.
i don't want to become part of a sect and i don't want to be treated like i was facing a sect.
now otherwise what happens with the money?
we will vote for something else tomorrow at least as far as i am concerned.
tomorrow president juncker will present his state of the union.
what shape are we in?
but as my report is targeted to the council as a whole i'll just get started.
mr president i think i should stop now and start again because i don't think this is a good start to the debate.
colleagues today we are debating the state of the rule of law democracy and fundamental rights in hungary.
i want to ask you colleagues today what is the state of our union?
because member states in the union have been shying away from looking at the state of their country when it comes to democracy fundamental rights and the rule of law. some speakers asked why hungary?
if you point to a mistake by somebody else it doesn't compensate for the mistakes you make yourself.
for instance the fundamental rights agency in vienna one of our agencies is not allowed to do that.
article two is about respect for human rights including everybody and article two is not about nepotism.
tomorrow commissioner juncker will talk about the state of the union.
i ask the house to vote in favour of this report.
now if you as a representative of a minority grouping manage to break through a glass ceiling good for you.
a government is a service provider to its people all its people and a government that is elected with such an enormous majority has extra responsibility to bring along all its people.
two thousand and nine if you look at my track record i have been supporting every debate that deals with rule of law in a member state and i can tell you that romania is going to be on the agenda next time if you all agree with a proposal that the greens have made.
i think we should keep that in mind.
some called it cut and paste'. i will explain why. it's because within the union there are no reports being written that are benchmarks on fundamental rights and democracy per member state.
it doesn't mean that everybody else in your society is able to follow you through the glass you've broken and it is that possibility that society needs to create because in the end what is a government?
i think that is important.
nepotism is not a european value.
but two wrongs do not make a right and that's the mistake a lot of people here are making.
then it's not for anybody else to define the date;
that's clear.
they're asking for a normal life and this is our first thought;
is it better than before? starting to get better and may be at risk of getting worse now again because the fight against militias is creating a different kind of dynamic.
the issue of the refugees that are entitled to protection that are in niger needs to be addressed by member states.
you can forget it and complain and do nothing or you can try to engage and you can try to have a different kind of picture.
my experience is this the biggest frustration of the libyans is when we remember that libya exists only in relation to the number of migrants arriving in europe whereas they've been suffering for years for different reasons first because of a dictatorship and then because of a state of conflict and they deserve to have a normal country and a normal life.
they couldn't even use the offices anymore.
but those thousands of libyans that have been registering to vote in the last months are asking for normality in their lives and are knowing very well that the state doesn't exist has never existed in libya.
and believe me it's quite something.
no it's not easy and it's not accomplished yet.
can i start by saying you're twenty two in this hemicycle tonight discussing libya and i think you expressed at least fifteen different positions.
we cannot be selective on when we like the un agencies or the ngos and when we don't or when we ignore that they're working with us.
we cannot talk about libya only because we are worried about the migrants.
no european union presence at sea at all at land at all no work on this file.
this is the same kind of work we have been doing and we are continuing to do in extremely difficult conditions on the detention centres where we finally managed together with the african union which i want to thank and together with the iom and unhcr which i'd like to thank because when we started this work they were not even present in the country and we are there together.
these are the objectives we have.
know very well that the mainstream in the european union member states and even in this parliament is not to put focus and priority on saving lives.
secondly with a clear constitutional and legal framework libyans need to know for what they are asked to vote.
it's a contradiction in terms.
so priority number one is to diminish the number of people dying inside libya at sea and in the desert before they enter libya.
and let me be very clear on elections because i have heard your voices and i know very well what is the current debate especially among commentators and in the media about that but we do have a clear common european union position that i have been expressing in these months
is it perfect?
and we need to have the reasonable certainty that all different stakeholders will accept the result of the elections the day after the elections.
so what we need to do is to work with them on the international standards and try to upgrade the levels not only of efficiency but also of respect of human rights.
second is also reducing the number of migrants arriving because we are working in destroying the system of business of the traffickers.
including to our libyan interlocutors and on which we have been working with the un special representative in these months on a daily basis which is that elections will need to take place first of all in a sustainable security environment.
i fully share with you and i said it at the beginning most of our member states are not doing their part especially when it comes to giving international protection to those in need.
this is to make you understand that the effort we are trying to do is to represent a united strong not only political position but action action with libyans putting the interest of the libyans first not the interests of one group or one militia or one militia against the other
when we started this work a couple of years ago i remember perfectly well the first meetings we had with the unchr and the iom and they were telling us no way we're going back to libya we're not there we're not operating there we only have a few local staff '.
you're asking me to represent a strong united european position.
and you.
it was left to single member states.
so we are doing this work we're trying to empower the libyans to decide for themselves and to try to help the united nations to run this difficult political process in a way that gives an answer to the demand of the libyan people to have institutions that function which is i think a natural expectation of anybody in the world.
and i will continue discussing this and working on this not only with the un special representative salam in new york in a couple of weeks' time but also with our libyan interlocutors and with the main regional players because what is essential is that we coordinate this work not only with the un not only among ourselves in the european union but also that we coordinate with the neighbouring countries with the african union and with the arab league.
this has been my priority and this is why today we have sophia at sea that is fighting the traffickers trying to train the libyan coastguards together with the ngos and with the un humanitarian agencies that are doing the training.
so i think that we need to keep working very hard on this keeping in mind first and foremost the facts some of you have mentioned.
that is why we have an electoral committee that we are supporting because we want the libyans to run the process to decide the process but they need our help they need our support from the basic financial need to have computers in the offices to the even more basic need to have offices because with the attack they had in may
because we cannot say we need to empower the libyans without interfering and then say it's useless they cannot run either the country nor the territorial waters.
and i appreciate you raising your voice on this as well as i have heard that much tonight from you on this but i trust we agree on that on the resources we allocate for our partnership with countries of origin and transit because they need our support in this.
this is what guides our action trying to create the unity that maybe you cannot find in this hemicycle i hope yes but among our member states.
but this is the reason why we have added to the mandate of operation sophia the training of the libyan coast guards including on human rights standards and including with the un agencies and with the ngos because we want that to start to be part of the dna
there's an engagement there's a commitment that needs to be respected.
we cannot can pick and choose. the work we're trying to do is exactly because we know there's a problem.
in particular public authorities have noted that criminals have resorted to sending or receiving cash via post or in a parcel in order to escape the obligation to make a declaration under the current rules.
unfortunately the commission was not convinced by this approach nor were the other political groups.
however we all agreed to introduce this possibility in a review clause and i hope the commission will conduct these assessments thoroughly and update us on the outcome.
the current rules on cash control need to be updated to address the new challenges. recent events have shown that terrorists have managed to find ways to circumvent the current rules on cash control.
that means taking tough but necessary decisions.
the litmus test of a european nation is how well these values are nurtured and protected.
we must protect the european way always.
we know that appeasement never works we know that our values are worth more than just the paper they are written on and we know that from some things we cannot look away.
of course we can choose to close our eyes but too much of europe's history is marked by terrible decisions taken in the name of expediency.
and so in the name of all those who sat in this chamber before us in the name of all those who believed and believe still tomorrow i shall stand up for europe.
if despite everything despite all the calls to change direction despite all the extended hands of friendship our values remain under serious threat as they are in hungary then we must act. we must choose the politics of hope over the politics of fear and cheap populism.
we should be proud of that.
it means no publishers' rights but presumption rights.
so with fifty colleagues we seek a compromise that puts the public interest first and is proportionate between the need to enforce copyright but also to respect fundamental rights.
we also speak of a freedom of panorama and an exemption for user generated content.
but the protection of copyright and ever more of it is not the direction that europe needs. this has been a depressing debate with claims of fake news flying back and forth rock star experts and aggressive lobbying from big companies on both sides of the argument.
it means new and clear text and data mining exemptions which has not been discussed much but which is crucial for the development of europe's artificial intelligence industry which is something of great concern as well.
so that means no upload filters but proportionate remuneration for creators.
but this should not distract us from the substance of what is at stake.
there are so many wrong things with europe today unrealistic federalisation disrespect of the natural family of one man and one woman and of human dignity more opposition to the freedom of speech.
but some would like to see hungary and other central european countries under control obediently following the wrong directives of brussels given from above according to the explanation of the common rules but with different biases.
we have some different opinions yes.
after forty years of communist oppression we are entitled to shape the eu project as well.
so yes let us settle those questions then.
the proposals have been widely criticised as a means of introducing censorship to the internet and social media and it has been criticised by no less a person than sir tim berners lee the creator of the world wide web.
otherwise this report would have gone unopposed for negotiations to the commission and we would have been stuck with whatever came out of the legislative sausage machine. this report is another example of the onesizefitsall legislation to supersede national legislation and laws and it will cause bigger problems than those they are supposed to fix.
i urge meps to vote for the efdd amendment eighty seven to reject the proposal completely and if that fails at least to vote for those amendments that mitigate the worst effects of the proposed legislation.
these proposals will also create a barrier for entry to entrepreneurs due to the difficult requirements for social media startups to comply with and it will inhibit competition.
the vast majority i have received have asked me to vote against it or at least to vote for those amendments which would mitigate its worst effects.
we should not make it harder for people to publish material of interest to the public or restrict the ability of small voices to be heard.
of course authors should have their works protected under fair and appropriate copyright laws but this legislation is not the answer.
when it comes to the tackling of many of the challenges we face mutually across the atlantic america is and will remain one of our key global allies.
many of the worst predictions have fortunately not occurred but his transactional approach to world affairs is indeed troubling to those of us who believe that the transatlantic partnership is a partnership rooted as much in shared democratic values as in mutual economic interests. trump's policies such as the punitive tariffs on steel and aluminium are particularly regrettable given their implementation on spurious security grounds against the us' own nato allies and his verbal attacks on eu and member states' domestic migration policies also shouldn't go unchallenged.
but there is an america beyond trump and in dealing with his unorthodox approach we must not allow this to overshadow the wider picture.
i welcome that the elmar brok report acknowledges this broad understanding.
the end of the economic cycle is there and the question is are we ready for that? well my answer in this debate is no'.
it. and that is the problem.
i am more of the opinion of mr dijsselbloem who said a few weeks ago in his assessment of the greek crisis that both sides were to blame greece on the one hand for not reforming deeply enough
reform of the monetary
we don't know when.
but the same is true not only for greece the old system of the eurozone is also still in
well you're certainly not an electoral accident that is clear because you are still here but my answer today is that you didn't become one or the
if we knew we would be rich of course but it will come.
we need a fully fledged banking union and mr dombrovskis although you say that we are making progress we don't have it today. we need a common eurozone budget which we don't have today. we need a safe euro asset which could be a eurobond or something similar although the germans will call it differently
europe is not ready for the next crisis that may overcome
place. i don't see markets opening i don't see professions being deregulated i don't see a vibrant private financial sector active in the greek economy.
i hope that we will raise awareness about stress and burnout at work talk more about mental health in the workplace and most importantly recognise the psychological and social factors that a return to work entails for individuals and recommend tailormade measures in different cases since we don't have one
workplaces should ensure a physically and mentally safe and healthy working environment throughout people's working life and active and healthy ageing for workers.
member state employers should have the obligation to keep a positive work oriented approach to people with disabilities especially because they are very often excluded.
measure that fits all.
punishing educational institutes who support them.
i don't think the flanagans and the kellys and the immigrants of this world would respect you.
i'll say it again i don't like the european union but as far as i'm concerned you are dirt.
well you'll really hate me then and my children because both my children's parents myself and my wife were migrants.
yet still my wife is a kelly one of the most common immigrant names. yet still we have a kelly in here who describes you as having courage and says how he respects you.
if they in the countries that they went to had to face what you're doing to immigrants well it wouldn't be a good thing signs put on the doors of people that helped them;
after world war ii a large number of nuclear scientists started to oppose nuclear weapons so that research could focus on the peaceful applications of nuclear energy and i think that today we are witnessing something very similar scientists and artificial intelligence pioneers are warning us of the dangers ahead.
this is a core objective in the commission's communication on artificial intelligence and in the follow up work that will also cover security matters.
this is the first step after a number of failures towards a shared approach.
human ingenuity and technological progress have made our lives easier and more comfortable.
among the members of this global tech panel are some of the experts on artificial intelligence who have been most vocal on the issue of lethal autonomous weapons. together with the experts' community we can find a solution that is both prudent and innovative.
i know that this might look like a debate about some distant future or about science fiction it's not.
we had the first meeting in brussels in june together with me and all of them.
this is a collective responsibility and i'm particularly glad that the european parliament is leading the way and driving the conversation on this issue so i am looking forward very much to listening to your views on this extremely important part of our common work.