kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
instead of telling girls how to dress or behave we should educate boys about consent.
i was made aware several months ago on the grapevine by a very reliable source that this was going to hit the newspapers very soon so much so that i actually mentioned it on the daily politics programme some months ago.
and then it did not hit the press and nothing happened.
but the focus seemingly is on sexual harassment of women by male meps only.
i am only suggesting but i understand it does go on.
therefore sexual harassment should not be gender specific.
we have not addressed sufficiently the scale of what is going on and the nature of what is going on.
we have a constant stream of cases but coming forward is very distressing for the victims.
disclosure is a professional and financial risk for them so victims don't come forward and their cases go unreported.
the situation is not acceptable.
we cannot be complacent.
we must get better better at preventing harassment in the first place by introducing mandatory mep training better at encouraging the victims to come forward by giving guarantees that they will not lose their jobs and better at acting swiftly once the investigation has been completed with sanctions imposed against the meps.
we have a long way to go as do many large institutions.
this parliament must demonstrate that we are a fair safe and respectful place for all to come and work at.
madam president yesterday the sentencing of a journalist who was regarded as eminent and highly respected for child sex abuse offences has been criticised for the leniency of the conviction and sentence.
he received two and a half years and the chief executive of the dublin rape crisis centre has led complaints about this.
i suppose what that shows is that even when the law takes its course society and families are not always satisfied by the outcome.
that is something we need to be conscious of.
i visited a women's refuge recently in my constituency and sexual violence is all too prevalent but i am glad to say that there is help and support available and people should reach out for that support.
i would ask colleagues in this house staff and members to put their faith in elisabeth morin chartier our colleague who takes on her shoulders an enormous responsibility and does it with great effect.
please if you have not approached her do!
it has been going on for decades for centuries but the novelty this time is that there is a global movement of women crying out this is not acceptable'.
this is not something we will continue to accept.
the arsenal of legal and policy measures at the eu level covers most of the actions to support member states in their work in fighting all kinds of violence against women and girls. now we need to focus on implementation and here there is work to do. we also need to dedicate all our efforts to complete the accession of the istanbul convention.
we also need to look at ourselves.
the commission has a helpline.
we have strong rules to protect whistleblowers who come and alert us on this. we have a network of confidential counsellors who can support women and girls and men who are victims of this. we have internal campaigns and courses and formal action.
possibly we can do more.
possibly you can do more on a formal basis.
the majority of the men in this house and elsewhere who would never dream of harassing a woman you need to speak out.
so let's support each other.
let's encourage the network to function in this regard.
the problem is much broader as we have discussed.
we will do what we can from the commission side.
member states have their role to play but the most important is a change of attitude and here we can all contribute.
thank you very much for having this debate.
madam chairman the culture in the entertainment world seems to be that those particularly women who want to work in the industry are preyed upon by powerful individuals mostly men who can make or break their careers.
the term casting couch' is so well known that it has entered the english language.
so this is not a new concept and i'd like to thank all those brave women who have come out in the me too' campaign.
i would particularly like to thank the brave employees of this parliament who have spoken out in recent days.
it is really important i believe to seize the momentum and do something in our own workplace and i'd like to see the resolution concentrate on that aspect.
but people still don't feel confident to use that structure and that's the real problem that we don't take it seriously enough.
if not now then when?
action is needed and we have to move beyond descriptions and diagnosis.
azerbaijan will be lost because the eu is not able to see the strategic importance of that country which is not looking for money but for a serious political partnership and its territorial integrity.
it is useless to blame russia.
the real question is why after experiencing the european union eastern partnership countries like armenia opt for the eurasian union.
belarus was lost because of the dogmatic shortcomings of some of our policies.
instead we must be more robust and pragmatic in our policy.
the helsinki principles as my colleague mr brok said using energy prices as a tool. this is not good enough. when someone is bullied by someone stronger and bigger than themselves it is very difficult for them to fight
back. the only way that they can do so is by getting the support of someone equally big as the bully and we are the partner who can do that for our eastern partners. i think we have to stand up firmly and strongly to russia and ensure that this type of behaviour is not acceptable so that these countries can exercise their sovereign right to independence now and forever.
such action clearly breached the principle to which all european states have subscribed.
and economic integration underpinned by those association agreements deep and comprehensive free trade areas.
on the contrary russia will also benefit greatly from the integration of the eastern partnership countries into the wider european economy.
for instance you cannot at the same time lower your customs tariffs as per the dcfta and increase them as a result of customs union membership.
so we encourage our partners to deepen their ties with russia as we do ourselves but in a way which is compatible with the association agreement and deep and comprehensive free trade areas' obligations. the european union is ready to work with its neighbours to find
foresaw the development of a free trade area.
and the instrumentalisation of protracted conflicts.
as a result we have seen enormous pressure being brought to bear upon some of our partners.
it may certainly be possible for members of the eastern partnership to increase their cooperation with the customs union perhaps as observers and participation in a dcfta is of course fully compatible let me stress that fully compatible with our partners' existing free trade agreements
independent studies indicate that a dcfta will bring substantial benefits.
proposed in.
any threats from russia linked to the possible signing of agreements with the european union are unacceptable.
it is true that customs union membership is not compatible with the dcfta which we have negotiated with ukraine the republic of moldova george and armenia.
the commission's communication of two thousand and eight then laid the basis for the offer extended to our eastern partners at the prague summit establishing the eastern partnership in two thousand and nine and confirming our joint objective of political association
this is not about a clash of economic blocks or a zero sum game.
the last thing we want to see is a protectionist wall cutting our continent in two.
this is not because of some ideological differences.
two thousand and six the first dcfta negotiations started with ukraine in two thousand and eight as soon as it had become a member of the wto the world trade organization.
this is due to legal impossibilities.
feasibility studies launched in two thousand and four led to the development of so called deep and comprehensive free trade areas' as an integral part of the new enhanced agreements subsequently known as association agreements
the development of the eurasian union project must respect our partners' sovereign decisions.
the european union has always been perfectly clear about its policy towards its eastern neighbours. our common interests dictate that we should work with our eastern neighbours to build a zone of prosperity and stability on our continent. already the existing partnership and cooperation agreement signed in one thousand nine hundred and ninety four
this applies to all forms of pressure including the possible misuse of energy pricing artificial trade obstacles such as import bans of dubious wto compatibility and cumbersome customs procedures military cooperation and security guarantees
clearly and wrongly this is seen in some quarters as a threat.
twelve but in order to implement these our partners must enjoy full sovereignty over their own trade policies which members of the customs union will not.
exports to the european union could double over time leading to an increase in gdp of up to approximately.
this is not how international relations should function in our continent in the twenty first century.
from the beginning parliament has strongly supported this approach of transforming this part of europe both politically and trade wise.
our vision is that these agreements should contribute in the long term to the eventual creation of a common economic space from lisbon to vladivostok based on wto rules.
the new generation of association agreements will bring enormous transformative benefits through legal approximation regulatory convergence and market liberalisation.
ways to promote greater regulatory convergence between eu member states and the customs union.
so it has been the russian decision to build the customs union and the eurasian union that has created a situation where our european partners now face a choice between the two projects for regional economic integration.
i am also intending to send short term expertise to moldova to help overcome some of the remaining barriers faced by their exports in other sectors such as poultry.
this is a key element of the european union russia partnership for modernisation and these standards are also increasingly being adopted by the customs union.
so the european union is actually helping all its partners including russia to modernise and open up to globalisation.
but we did not stop there.
the partners could align with these on the understanding that they will not be in contradiction with the obligations stemming from their association agreement and dcfta.
it is inconceivable that through a decision made freely our partners should be punished and their trading relationship with custom union members threatened to be placed under far worse conditions than our own arrangements.
between the european union and russia thereby helping to generate stability and predictability for both russian and european union companies.
including this deep and comprehensive free trade area is a most powerful instrument of that transformation.
i have problems with participating in these zero sum games as i am a great believer in the win win approach particularly when dealing with such an important privileged and strategic partner as russia.
likewise the new agreement we have been negotiating to replace the european union russia partnership and cooperation agreement should include provisions for greater convergence of the regulatory framework
of being able to further increase the wine quota for moldovan exports to the european union.
let me stress that european union norms are often adopted internationally and are of course fully compatible with wto rules.
actively cooperating with russia on the alignment of many norms and standards.
nine the idea of the eurasian union project had yet to get off the ground.
there is a lack of compatibility between those two concepts.
let me make it clear that it is inconceivable that our partners should become victims of that incompatibility.
in the framework of the information and coordination group in which the russian federation has an important place.
mr brok was talking about choice. yes that is the basic rule in democracy and international law that not only individuals but also the people in the states have the right to choose which way they want to go.
when choosing their strategic partners the eu's eastern neighbours should be able to do so freely. yet lately many decisions have been made under unprecedented pressure from russia.
ukraine georgia and armenia in particular are countries i have come to know well during the last few years as they work hard to build strong accountable democracies from the wreckage of their soviet past.
and even more importantly that tbilisi and kiev and of course ukraine is the big prize for the russians will not also succumb to russian pressure.
of course the russians have this ridiculous outdated zero sum game as their world view.
in the meantime let us do all we can in the european union to extend the hand of friendship to the eastern partnership countries in the true spirit of partnership and work with them to build political and cultural links whatever they decide for the future.
madam president the upcoming vilnius summit is by far one of the most important meetings regarding our relations with our eastern partnership countries.
already the terminology relates to a cold war mindset.
we must show putin that his kgb methods are unacceptable to the european union.
its partners but also on us the european union.
we must reaffirm the necessity to show our support clearly and powerfully to our eastern neighbours.
let me point out just one aspect of it.
the reabsorption of our eastern partners is a russian project.
unfortunately we created opportunities for russia by lacking a resolute enough eastern approach.
our offer is free choice but our partners need tangible political support.
increased market access and political dialogue are good but not enough.
that is the case with the budget of the european union as well as in member states.
without priorities there is no leadership.
we need to take into consideration the development of the agricultural markets and decrease the spending there.
i also welcome the very clear message in the report calling for a significant increase in research and science because that is one of the priorities we need to have.
if we do not dare to set those priorities we do not show leadership.
i must say that if we cannot understand the tough situation member states are in today we do not understand the reality for citizens.
there are always those tasks and challenges that are more important than others.
i would like to say and i say this to the commission that politics and leadership are about priorities.
this is an ongoing struggle for leadership and priorities.
however it cannot be divorced from the realities of its citizens.
three three billion in their pockets the value of the catch lost when the eu let other countries fish in their territorial waters.
businesses forced to spend gbp thirty million to comply with eu regulations could save this by taking back control from europe.
mr president the mocking of her majesty's government by mr verhofstadt when he shared with us his logic as to why britain should hand over more money and more power to the eu was further evidence of the palpable disdain in which the uk its national government and its citizens are held by some in this house. what mr verhofstadt failed to mention is that other savings are available to the uk.
it can only be met by raising taxes cutting services schools
commissioner you state that the european budget is not a duplication of a national budget.
uk fishermen would love to have the gbp.
mr president this morning mr daul came running to speak here in the plenary on the need for a bigger eu budget but he was running so fast that he was running out of breath and had to stop speaking.
some money has to be returned to member states. so why do you need more money if you cannot spend the money you have?
i believe that the dominating role of gni based revenue makes a decision on the eu budget over politicised and less efficiency oriented. it facilitates demands to freeze or to reduce eu spending.
there is always a risk that the same coalition that adopts the budgetary decision in the council can also adopt the same decision in the european parliament.
it leads to the logic expressed in the context of the two thousand and eleven budget negotiations that if we cut our national budgets due to the crisis we should apply the same approach to the eu budget.
the success of a national politician returning home from brussels negotiations should not be based on the message that the government will pay less to the eu budget but for example on the message that the eu will help to make small companies fund innovation projects.
financing of euro bail outs should be left to those countries that actually wanted to join the euro in the first place.
the committee had a chance to pursue many of these constructive and future proof suggestions;
mr president the public the hardworking taxpayers across europe who actually earn the money which so many in this place are so keen to spend want europe to do less and they want europe to do it better.
those of us who warned that it was a mistake should not be forced to contribute to it.
they want europe to focus on the very limited number of areas where europe can actually add value and leave the rest of the activities to our member states. unfortunately this report proposes none of these things.
the budget should be modernised funds should be reallocated to programmes which actually deliver future benefits and not cover up past failures.
this is the device by which the united kingdom pays only an unacceptable net contribution instead of an outrageous net contribution.
it starts with a hefty helping of self delusion never have europeans been more demanding of the eu'.
those who are arguing for more money at a european level would have a stronger case if we knew that we had an absolute cast iron understanding of where the money actually goes. last but not least in reply to mr verhofstadt it is unwise to single out any one member state when there are a number of member states which are net contributors to the budget. i would urge very strongly that we should have a limit on the net contribution of member states as a percentage of gdp because looking forward it is unrealistic to think you can get member states' approval when their net contributions are doubling at a time of significant austerity.
if it is the case that two thousand and twenty is a seven year dimension we should have an absolute condition that the next one will be for a five year period. secondly there is insufficient work done on looking at how we get a statement of assurance for expenditure.
the resettlement of iraqi refugees in the eu has shown that it works.
for instance the directive on temporary protection or the internal distribution of refugees.
are you personally committing yourself to putting this issue on the agenda as soon as possible?
that leaves me with the impression that member states are not willing to protect human rights that they are timid when it comes to international protection.
resettlement is for people who have not reached or have not tried to reach the european union to apply for asylum here so for all the heads of state who are constantly saying that we should tackle migration where it originates before it ends up in the european union this should be the perfect instrument.
however the number of iraqi refugees accepted was ridiculously small.
i do not find it acceptable if you are saying that we are delaying the process it was just us who are trying to implement our normal parliamentary rights.
the eu can and should help here.
the lesson of north africa is that all of those people are pouring into countries unable to deal with the burden.
mr president i speak as a former uk immigration minister.
there is no doubt that the protection of the vulnerable and those seeking genuine refuge especially given recent events around the world is of great importance and priority for this house and i hope is even more important for the council.
the uk like other member states has played its part in resettling refugees through national resettlement programmes in the past but it is hugely important that through a coordinated cooperative and communicative approach we discuss how we can best reconcile assisting those most in need with the situations of those member states that are already overburdened with national priorities.
i am cautious however that programmes in this area should not undermine a nation's right to set its own policies.
we also need cooperation and communication between parliament and the council more action by the council more determination by the council.
i would like to seek a reassurance that it intends to inform this house regularly as to how it will proceed and if or how recent events in north africa will change the pace and process.
please council let us get on with this.
the suffering of palestinians does not need to continue.
we are running out of time but not out of options.
since then many have lost faith that peace between palestinians and israelis is possible. aggressive expansion of jewish settlements in occupied palestinian territory has radically altered the geographical map. experts warn that territory for a viable peace based on a two state solution is vanishing before our eyes.
it is for everyone's good including our own.
let us use all our tools diplomatic and economic to create incentives so that this time peace has a real chance.
once upon a time europe was riven with war; it took two world wars and the loss of millions of lives before we understood the futility of war and began our own peace process.
we do not need another generation of young palestinians with lifelong hatred in their hearts.
i would like to remind everybody of a brilliant piece by none other than tony judd way back in two thousand and three in the new york review of books which made waves in israel as well.
i will try to refrain from grandstanding and pretending that we or anyone in this house could know the exact solution to the conflict.
my israeli friends also know that.
the reason why we base our position on the two state solution is not ideological it is a practical response to thinking about how the alternative would look.
but the process of making peace real vibrant and viable peace depends on real people and real communities.
organisations who seek to build tolerance understanding and openness.
the eu must take into account this grassroots work and these organisations.
i would therefore like to highlight the work of civil society organisations artists academics and activists who are striving to build coexistence and dialogue between communities;
these include the israeli palestinian bereaved families forum made up of parents who have lost a loved one in the war and work together for peace ecopeace friends of the earth middle east who connect israelis and palestinians in a fight for the environment and breaking the silence who are israeli veterans who explain the wrongs of the occupations to israeli society.
but the real question is how can eu institutions conduct a dialogue on the preservation of the two state solution?
the joint resolution mentions the large amounts of investment by the eu in gaza but the infrastructure this paid for was severely damaged during the two thousand and fourteen conflict.
all too often the negotiations are undermined by focusing on the details too early which is why contentious topics such as the status of jerusalem east jerusalem which settlements can stay or go and the right of return for the palestinians must now be left to the end following simpler confidence building initiatives now at the beginning.