kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
support for europe is up.
there is no need for paralysing pessimism in the european union. we can be more optimistic than before.
but we can face this challenge.
for this to work we need full respect for the rule of law in all our member states.
it is not an option you choose.
we need to have an answer to the aggressive and cynical attitude of president putin of russia.
it is a fundamental issue for the functioning of the european union and i say this against the background of increased support for the european union amongst the european population in every member state of the european union.
let me just say once again as president tusk has also said that it is not the eu that decided to leave the united kingdom it is the united kingdom that decided to leave the european union.
likewise i would say on brexit that it was a good decision in the european council and now we need to get to work.
economic growth is up.
this is a different challenge and will need different measures but we are up to it.
the bigger challenge we face is migration people who want to come to europe to seek a better future and we have to make sure that we develop all the instruments at a european level to tackle that issue better border controls better agreements with countries of origin and countries of transit and also a better system of legal migration so that we get to europe the people that we
now let us be clear. poland and hungary defend the true rule of law and true human rights so i urge this commission to fully support the polish and hungarian governments and to congratulate austria on their new government.
i warn this commission once again that the road to federalism is a dead end.
no deal will bring the uk eur six hundred and fifty billion.
mr president the joint report agreed with brussels in december was an important step forward in agreement on the terms of the uk's exit from the european union.
across the united kingdom there is an acceptance that the integrity of our precious union and of our economy is better protected as a result of democratic unionist party input into the text.
we will continue to act in the national interest.
an implementation period and trade talks should now go ahead as quickly as possible.
finally can i say that my constituency my home northern ireland is not a bargaining chip?
as we have seen over the last few days whether it be in west tyrone or delivered by a european union president in dublin careless talk or calculated soundbites can have harmful consequences for political stability in northern ireland.
an open heart to possible developments and choices in the future.
the first one is the commitment to equip the european union with updated social standards with the european pillar of social rights.
if we consider that many many people today have jobs but without a labour contract or without social protection we can conclude that something basic is wrong.
we need to correct this and make sure that everybody in employment whatever the kind of job they do has a decent labour contract and full access to social protection.
and then we need to make sure that people particularly young people have access to proper skills and new kinds of job which means large scale investment in the future.
and also very pro european.
i just want to ask him as a follow up to what he said about the possibility of a change of heart.
we only have to look at the case of julian assange to see where that can lead.
i can assure these people and especially my constituents in london that i and my ukip colleagues will vote against acta.
but one element of acta which particularly concerns me is the criminalisation of offences under article.
all things considered i urge my colleagues here to vote against acta.
later. let me now try to answer the substantive questions that have been put
democratic responsibility. i think it is also the responsibility of the european commission to be straightforward in this. we need a discussion on intellectual property; we need a discussion on how to enforce intellectual property. i think also we need the guidance of the european court of justice on this. that
ready. this is true and it is also the main reason why i think we should go to the european court of justice so that they help us in formatting this whole discussion. what i fear is that if you now vote it down which obviously is on your minds
so i understand where the people have come from on this issue and i think we are absolutely right as a parliament to respond to that.
what they object to is perhaps overreaching the proper definition of reward and curtailing freedom in providing that reward.
the under twenty five s who regard the internet as a zone of freedom and an open area for expression and i do not think acta has successfully reflected their concerns.
but if you give in to the big commercial lobbies you are being responsive.
what we have to strive for now both as a commission and as a parliament is the balance between ensuring that rights holders do get a return for their investment for their effort whilst maintaining internet freedom.
the one thing that is worrying me about this debate is the presumption on some benches that if you listen to ordinary citizens you are being populist.
i also take from this debate though both on the internet and in this room that there is no one who really opposes the idea that rights holders should get a decent reward for their efforts.
interestingly the other demographic has been people from central and eastern europe who know what it is to have their freedoms curtailed and have expressed great concern about the way acta might be implemented.
you have customs officers able to go through your files at airports and we have this unaccountable acta committee which has the power to make changes without referring back to this parliament or others.
in this acta we have what i call pre crime' as in the movie minority report where you can have your pccs on the mere suspicion of infringement.
whilst the thrust of the agreement is worthy the devil is in the detail. in the detail we find that internet service providers will be forced to spy on all their customers chinese state style becoming legally responsible for pirated files.
search engines could be closed for aiding and abetting.
you have a loose definition of commercial scale which could see many law abiding citizens prosecuted for very low key usage.
mr president the acta agreement is one i wish i could champion. i very much agree we need measures to counter piracy and protect intellectual property which is vital to business but i cannot support this acta.
in conclusion i support the aim but i do not support the detail of acta.
acta is designed to extend the tools for enforcement of intellectual property rights that have been so successful in europe and which this parliament has always supported to other countries as well. no more. no less.
neither are there any quick fixes for its rejection.
they are dependent for their livelihoods on the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights in europe and across the rest of the world.
and since our freedoms are not threatened by our current laws our freedoms will not be threatened by acta.
but i also know that freedom needs a framework.
i hope that these discussions will be able to happen in their proper context which is in debates about the substantive law of the european union not about international enforcement. besides the european parliament the commission would also discuss the outcome of the court referral with other signatories of acta and would then consider further steps to take.
because citizens have raised concerns over its potential impact on fundamental rights because many of you have raised similar questions so let us get some answers.
i hope that you will bear these considerations in mind.
what is true is that if parliament votes this treaty down the commission will continue to wait for the opinion of the court and study it closely.
that is why the acta agreement should be the subject of the most careful scrutiny and deliberation.
this is also i might add the view of the european parliament's own legal service.
they risk undermining one of europe's most significant competitive advantages over other regions of the world namely our knowledge based and creative industries.
in this respect i believe that it would have been preferable for parliament to wait until we know what the court thinks before voting.
nothing changes in the eyes of the law.
as europeans i believe that we all share profound respect for individual freedom.
for instance the definition of commercial scale' and what sharing information means in relation to the challenges one faces with respect to the protection of intellectual property.
we share their view that these concerns must be addressed.
this is because we do not have to modify any part of our internal legislation the so called acquis communautaire.
let me then just say that my considered view as a lifelong supporter of human rights and fundamental freedoms is that there is nothing to fear in this agreement.
digital contact exists increasingly in abundance and we cannot enforce counterfeit goods the same way as we do digital content not without violating fundamental rights or other collateral damage.
it is time to say goodbye to acta but this rejection comes with responsibilities.
we need to complete the eu's digital single market for which we desperately need copyright reform not the enforcement of twenty seven different systems.
mr president we have been joined by millions of europeans who voiced protests against acta and i want to recognise this historic movement and build on it in a constructive way.
who needs democracy and debate in society when we have the european commission to tell us what is what.
unlike you i applaud the anti acta campaigners the thousands who have taken to the streets the tens of thousands who sent e mails the millions of people who have signed petitions.
we will continue to fight it today tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and to struggle for a society and an economy based on the free exchange of information knowledge and research for the benefit of all.
if acta is defeated tomorrow it will be thanks to those campaigners.
mr president the european commission its political allies in this parliament and you in particular commissioner de gucht have done everything possible to try to avoid a vote taking place on acta tomorrow because you are scared that it will be defeated given the mass opposition that exists across europe.
that represents a complete contempt for democracy but at least you have been consistent in that contempt throughout this whole process of acta.
we cannot guarantee that civil liberties will be robustly protected by the acta treaty provisions.
it is not the role of isps to police the internet and we should not be privatising law enforcement in this way.
i genuinely came to this report with no agenda on acta and if anything i was probably regarded as having a pro ipr agenda.
this time the devil is in the lack of detail.
but what exactly is indirect commercial advantage'.
the third major area of concern i have is the role of internet service providers provisions.
is that commercial scale' or is that simple private usage?
as i have said before creativity is the raw material of the european union.
we have had many debates in this chamber on international agreements.
it is their role as the institution with the right of initiative to do so.
madam president today my strong recommendation to this house is that we reject the acta treaty.
i have spoken to the rights holders that it seeks to protect and i have engaged with civil society organisations who have serious concerns about this agreement.
at the outset of this debate though let me make it clear that unlike some i do not criticise the commission for bringing forward this proposal.
i personally have come to the conclusion that there are serious flaws and serious concerns about the way that this agreement could be misinterpreted and implemented.
before i have described myself as the accidental rapporteur.
i have often said that the devil is in the detail.
what if one person copies a piece of music or a film and gives it to a friend who gives it to another friend and so on.
i know the commission will say that it is not commercial scale' because commercial scale is defined in european law.
acta refers to commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage'.
i have listened to civil society's concerns on this agreement and while some of the perceived threats of acta were perhaps exaggerated or unfounded i am convinced that there are some key problems with the treaty. the first is a lack of clear definition of commercial scale'.
i also have related concerns to the sanctions contained in the acta treaty which appear sometimes to be excessive in terms of the civil and criminal penalties.
when it comes down to protecting intellectual property rights or protecting civil liberties civil liberties should always be central to the concern of this house.
which might push isps to monitor online behaviour and report individuals for ipr infringement is very dangerous.
i know of authors and musicians who are far from wealthy and who depend on the protection of their creations to make a living.
rights holders in the creative and manufacturing industries are voracious in pursuing their rights. often understandably so when you see the level of counterfeit and piracy they face. but this means that a vague text is dangerous.
i have taken the trouble to go through this and so have my researchers.
i think honestly you have to judge it on the legal detail in that agreement.
that is what i have made my decision on not on a lot of e mails i have received we have all received those but on the actual detail and what it says in that agreement.
so. we should allow both business models to be able to coexist.
we pushed the commission for a referral to the ecj but when the commission actually goes ahead and listens to us and refers to the ecj what do we
i actually think that is quite dishonourable and we will not be taken seriously if we continue to act in this way.
the commission as well as the member states have failed to rebut those concerns and it cannot be denied that the text of the agreement is open to uncharitable interpretation.
parliament should not adopt an agreement that might undermine the rights and freedoms of our citizens.
that was my only question.
mr president this treaty has got much more to do with the possible criminalisation of innocent third parties such as isps and disproportionate actions against small businesses and even private individuals than it has with the protection of legitimate copyright interests.
if acta were interpreted to impose responsibility on service providers they would introduce filters and monitors which would analyse data streams for offending content.
we would then potentially have the machinery in place to do what china does to its internet access in that country monitor and filter out unsuitable political content.
it cannot be presumed that every person who illicitly gains access to copyright material would otherwise have paid for it.
the obligation of isps to hand over personal data about alleged infringements of copyright would open the door to large corporations forcing people to pay unjustified demands for money to avoid crippling legal expenses.
i would just like to say that i fully agree with the fact that an interpretative protocol would have helped get rid of some confusion.
i wonder if you would like to join the epp in voting to wait for the european court of justice because that might give the commission the possibility to do exactly that?
i think the question would actually be the same to you. what are you afraid of?
what are you afraid that the european court of justice will say which makes it so desperately important for you to vote before we have heard what they say?
that is actually my question.
still we have a long way to go to ensure the effective protection of these values. in the particular area of national autochthonous or language minorities the eu has not been able to prevent discriminative practices having a negative impact on the language and culture of persons belonging to such groups and ultimately to the intra eu diversity we are supposed to cherish. more than sixty million citizens expect acknowledgement of their existence by the eu institutions.
i can definitely say that the eu legislative process is considerably more transparent accountable and inclusive than the one from my country.
that said there is room to be more effective resilient and more capable of addressing citizens' expectations.
many of the ills attributed to the eu are either not its fault in the first place or are exaggerated as is the case of the famous democratic deficit issue.
mr president i am not among those who believe that we need to rebuild the european union from the ground up.
we all know that the european union is supposed to be founded among other things on the value of equality non discrimination and respect for diversity.
they prefer to present the european union as a technocratic entity that can be summed up in terms of economic benefits or costs. if people are worried about loss of identity abolishing roaming charges will not reassure them.
who did not feel the excitement when president macron met with trump and putin and represented a self confident and proud europe? and colleagues who did not feel proud when we voted today on our commitment to the paris climate agreement making europe the world leader where others withdraw?
the european union is not only an economic powerhouse but it has great moral authority in the world.
election campaigns in recent years focused not just on traditional material issues of jobs and social security but very much on values culture and identity.
respect for fundamental rights is vital for common migration policies and police cooperation and the rule of law is absolutely essential for the internal market and investor confidence.
our values have inspired many around the world and many people dream of living in the kind of free fair stable and democratic society we have in europe so much so that others see our values as a threat something they seek to destroy.
they claim there is one people one voice one truth only but clearly recent elections have proved them wrong. europeans will not be reduced to a one dimensional caricature. if we wish to make europe strong we must therefore promote the opposite and embrace european integration diversity equality pluralism.
the european union is a deeply political union but most politicians are wary of explaining this to their voters.
anyone who denies this is denying reality'.
two thousand and sixteen and two thousand and seventeen will go down in the history books as the years of unprecedented turmoil and renewal with a steep rise of nationalist forces but no breakthrough.
if they are unsure about the shared values of our community they will not find comfort in trade agreements but we should not leave the monopoly of defining our shared values and our identity to the nationalists.
nationalist parties have responded by sowing distrust hatred and fear or by promising to go back to an imaginary past.
but we have not defined our shared values for fair weather conditions only.
in these current times of great uncertainty insecurity and societal turbulence it is not easy to defend our shared values;
the world order is changing at a breath taking speed and people are worried and anxious about loss of identity and loss of community.
but dear colleague weber the reality is that the true soul of europe lies in its diversity and the freedom to choose what to believe and who you are.
we reject that but we have to recognise that our own response to the clear questions on values identity and culture have not been adequate.
social justice is a precondition for a stable climate for investment and development.
populist parties worldwide have an agenda based on nationalism xenophobia homophobia and sexism.
if they are afraid their culture is threatened cutting red tape will not allay their fears.
instead we see the first signs of a european spring not summer yet but after years marked by tensions and discontent there is a breeze of optimism expectation and hope in the air.
we can be proud.
values are the key to the refoundation of the european union.
it is anchored in institutions which are profoundly anti democratic and which have delivered poverty hopelessness and division in many of your constituent nations.
the only way the nations of the eu can achieve stability growth and fairness is to follow the uk out of the european union.
it is a vision based on opportunism corporatism and neo colonialism.
this is so blatantly insane.
it was coming out of dictatorship and as a young man coming from the netherlands i was shocked to see the abject poverty in spanish rural areas.
domestic violence was endemic.
look at what has been achieved.
that would be my first point.
let us not lose track of our historic achievements;
the values the european union is based upon enshrined in article two of the treaty have been signed and ratified by every single nation member of the eu and yes there are cultural differences and all sorts of differences.
it is about the predictability of jurisdiction it is about the fight against corruption.
i believe the reason why we talk about re foundation today is because we have understood that our union is not unbreakable.
as a soldier i was trained to fight the eastern bloc.
it was my own church that needed to be enlightened.
surely i do not claim that as a result of the european union it is the polish people who did that.
at that time poland was in worse economic shape than ukraine. look at poland today where it is.
i just want to say one thing about the christian foundations of europe and i say this as a christian.
look at what our parents and grandparents overcame.
we should not talk ourselves down in this.
we can do so much better and so much more.
and let me stress this one thing.
but now that we see that our fundamental values are under threat under fire we know that we have to stand up for them and speak up for them more than ever before.
but i am sure the european union helped in achieving that especially in terms of the rule of law. it is not just about the economy it is about the independence of courts.
the spanish inquisition was not invented by atheists so let us all take responsibility for what we contributed.
as long as you think it cannot be broken anyway you do not care so much about fundamental values they will be all right.
but they could not have done that i believe in this measure without becoming members of the family of free european nations in the european union.
yes of course christianity has a huge role in how we developed our values but i would feel very uncomfortable as a christian if another christian claimed the copyrights on european values as exclusively christian. we would not be here without the humanists we would not be here without the enlightenment.
and if you know what we can achieve coming out of this crisis where the number of jobs in europe now is higher than ever before i know we still have many things to overcome but let us have a bit more self confidence that we can overcome this.
so if people today say the european union is just a big shambles and a mess they must have been blind over the last forty years.
but article two is binding on every single member state and every single actor in that member state and you cannot get rid of that responsibility simply by arguing along cultural lines.
as a teenager i went to spain.
then look at spain today.
surely i am not claiming this for the european union it was the spanish people who did that.
children did not go to school or very badly to school.
as work progressed on that front the sixtieth anniversary of the rome treaties in march this year was another occasion to reflect on our common future.
we may also be recognising that working together on global challenges like trade climate and terrorism is preferable to going it alone.
the european council has since then framed its work across these main priorities.