kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we need to look at different fields of society in order to give a chance to people from marginalised communities.
let us not shy away from clearly mentioning the obstacles that we are still facing to have inclusive societies in the european union.
they were curious they wanted to learn and they were really trying to get integrated into the school in gelsenkirchen.
madam president first of all i would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs the great civilsociety organisations and everyone else who has contributed to making this report what it is a great starting point for making the right changes to european cohesion policy in order to make it more inclusive for marginalised communities
human rights are the basis of the european union.
in delivering services to marginalised communities in a more efficient
madam president despite the first steps of progress achieved through the eu framework for national roma integration the wide gaps in our societies show that there is a lot more to be done to break the vicious circle faced by marginalised communities especially the roma lack of education and diminished labour market prospects coupled with direct and indirect discrimination. nevertheless it is also in these vital areas where a better use of cohesion policy could make a difference.
mainstream and targeted measures for the reduction of the rate of roma early school leavers are among the measures that could have the largest long term impact as it is early school leaving which later translates into the lack of skills and qualifications that prevent roma from accessing quality employment in their adulthood.
many of those twentieth century solutions have now become a part of the twenty first century problem.
in their europe the household challenge was putting food on the table.
their solutions were ever closer union the european social model and the common agricultural policy.
sadly communists and neo nazis who want to place landmines on the greek border are now a major part of the greek parliament. ms le pen received a fifth of the vote in france. and yet what was the commission's response to the first round upset in france?
are we listening?
we cannot go on taking the people for granted.
it is stupid it is unsustainable and it will bring national bankruptcy a step closer for many states.
we can continue to believe that we know best or we can trust the people to know what is right.
two thousand and five we have to ask ourselves whether we are in fact listening to what the people have to say today because the eu faces clear choices.
when national governments have rolled back the frontiers of the state they have found that their people and their economies thrive.
it is time to roll back its frontiers.
to paraphrase a famous quote of president reagan the nine most terrifying words in the english language are i am from the eu and i am here to help'.
but often our well intentioned actions become part of the problem and lead to less personal or economic freedom for individuals.
that is of course nonsense.
to me nothing better sums up everything that is wrong with the eu than that reaction.
we believe that the single market should be the jewel in the crown of the eu promoting deregulation and competition rather than red tape and harmonisation.
democracy the rule of the people is the greatest greek export in history and it is under threat.
we believe that free trade is the best way to promote our products and our values across the globe.
it is not too late to face reality to trust the people and to embrace small government in brussels but time is rapidly running out.
more europe is needed we were told by a spokesman.
unless we change course the world will keep turning and europe will fall further and further behind in the international competitive league table and we will only have ourselves to blame.
sustainable growth requires profitably producing and selling more goods and services.
i have one simple explanation for that. the people do not trust the eu because the eu does not trust the people.
my group is happy to offer an alternative vision for the future of the eu based on liberty national democracy and proper entrepreneur led growth.
we can continue with the mantra of an ever closer union or we can build an effective union that does less but does it better.
i am a firm believer that small government works.
we feel that we have all of the answers and the commission's schuman day statement just backs up that assumption.
everybody that i know maybe apart from a few of the greens actually wants growth.
i think we know the answer to the question that he posed but the trumpets are sounding even louder now today than they were in.
the eu has become a big government.
if we do they will turn to ugly alternatives.
seven years ago in this chamber following the french and dutch rejections of the european constitution one of the north east constituents of stephen hughes and myself prime minister tony blair told this chamber that people are blowing the trumpets around the city walls.
the euro the fiscal compact the impositions of the troika and endless eu legislation have stopped our electors from having the power to determine their own destinies.
getting the eu to borrow and spend even more money to create fake demand at a time when national debts are already spiralling out of control is not pro growth.
we can continue to pass more legislation we can have ten year economic plans or we can cut red tape and lift the burden on businesses.
but the world has moved on since the schuman declaration was made sixty two years ago and sadly in many areas the eu has not.
the eu is not only becoming irrelevant in the world but also in the minds of many of our own people.
you know this project could even cause the rebirth of national socialism in europe.
he did not at the time of course have the benefit of seeing that theory as it played out in yugoslavia.
but like communism this has all gone badly wrong and the eu titanic has now hit the iceberg.
it began in finland last year with the true finns getting nearly twenty of the vote and we are seeing in country after country new political movements on the right and on the left making big scores. but that may not be all good news because what we saw in greece last sunday was rather reminiscent of the german election of.
i think we are celebrating the wrong day.
we face the prospect of mass civil unrest possibly even revolution in some countries that are being driven into total and utter desperation.
we should be celebrating eight may victory in europe day. we should celebrate the last time the germans tried to smash the continent and they foundered and at least half the continent got its democracy back.
there is perhaps some good news.
i owe no allegiance to that flag and nor do most of the people in europe either.
i want a europe but a europe based on trade a europe based on cooperation a europe based on us sitting round the table and agreeing sensible rules on crime and the environment.
we can do all of those things but we cannot do them if we are asked to rally behind that flag.
when people stand up and talk about the great success that the eu has been i am not sure anybody saying it really believes it themselves anymore.
but there is perhaps an opportunity;
it is a european union of economic failure of mass unemployment of low growth but worst of all it is an eu with the economic prism of the euro and this now poses huge dangers to the continent.
what we are celebrating on nine may is another attempt through different means to smash democracy across europe.
we are headed the wrong way.
also it is indeed advisable to strengthen the european internal market in defence equipment yet buying exclusively european is not always within the reach of certain member states.
their message is that we need a consistent yet achievable level of ambition; a strategic vision including a white paper on defence;
if the budget cuts are too deep there will be no significant capabilities left to pool and share.
by the way there are plenty of examples of successful collaborative defence projects but none of these have involved or indeed need to involve the european union and the fewer the partners the more efficient the collaboration.
the trouble is that the premise of both papers is a non existent european state peopled by people that regard themselves as european citizens.
if the eu contribution is centred on generating new capabilities then that could be valuable.
you only have to say these words to realise how ridiculous they are.
i think there are some forty four pages in all between the two reports.
it is called white elephants' and tells you all you need to know about collaborative defence projects.
i very much hope you will all be disappointed.
i commend the paper produced by our think tank new direction and written by professor keith hartley.
the eu defence council in december is seen as the key opportunity to take forward european defence.
both could be reduced to twelve words just let the european union run our armed forces and defence industries.
for example in michael gahler's report i agree that our companies must take care when transferring sensitive technologies to third parties. i also agree about the need to invest more in rd the need for improved certification the need to recognise the very specific nature of defence markets and on the importance of the nato defence planning process.
on capabilities we must ensure complementarity not parallel activities and duplication. on consultation the situation is absurd.
but for me i have to say that it means something rather different.
naturally therefore strategic autonomy means the autonomy of the european union.
how many other constitutions have been overridden and changed in order to accommodate eu integration?
that goal is being steadily pursued by means of common procurement procedures common communications systems and common command and control structures.
if britain's service men and women understand the writing on the wall then they will vote en masse for the united kingdom independence party.
meanwhile they are stretched to breaking point and expected to perform miracles.
the british armed forces are being deliberately run down so that their resulting weaknesses can be used as an excuse for eventually merging them into a common eu army.
one misconception is that we can rely on the national capabilities of member states or nato.
it states bluntly and with good reason that there is not much political will in the eu to make use of the csdp. the capability development process failed and the capability shortcomings are enormous.
there are too many serious ethical human rights related and security related questions involved that necessitate political deliberation.
that said we are in favour of more cooperation and pooling and sharing between member states.
that is why it is even more ridiculous that we have csdp.
but equally i do not agree that the european union creating duplicative structures is the answer to our problems. we all know why csdp was set up. it was because france was not happy with the american presence in europe and has always had the ambition to create a separate structure. i have always said that now that france is fully integrated in
way. after all it has the enormous advantage of binding the united states to the security of europe and discussing crises with all of the key players including by the way most of the member states of the european union.
it is the same countries talking to one another in the same city.
i would agree with that.
and you will find that there are four or five countries in europe which are the main defence industry providers and which have very good collaborative defence arrangements intergovernmentally.
madam president as a euro realist of course i accept the reality of the csdp and the need to engage with it although many in my own national political party are deeply hostile to the very concept.
in my view the csdp must always remain subject to unanimity in the council.
i believe that constructive engagement is the way forward partly because as was pointed out in the debate france insists on it as one of only two european major military powers and as a condition of rejoining nato and its command and control structures.
one of my major areas of concern is the risk of duplication of effort in a climate of limited resources in the defence spending sector where concepts like nato smart defence and the csdp's pooling and sharing are being developed rightly to save on costs to national budgets.
it is only a few hours since all the meps in this chamber were cheering and clapping when malala yousafzai said that a powerful country should not be judged on counting its soldiers and its navy.
these reports demand more military integration more military ventures and more military funding and this is only part of the process of the further militarisation of europe.
just yesterday at the european defence agency meeting seven eu countries formed a new drone club to develop a eurodrone.
it really says something that at this time of austerity for millions across europe the priority is to invest to find better ways of killing people.
the irish socialist james connolly at the start of the first world war put it very well and very aptly for this debate war is a relic of barbarism only possible because we are governed by a ruling class with barbaric ideas.
will the eu develop offensive capacity in the context of cyber defence to avert threats to critical infrastructure and if we do how can we avoid a cyber arms race?
we cannot credibly talk about cyber security if we do not stop the trade in digital arms.
in what kind of operations is its use foreseen and how do these initiatives relate to european ambitions?
does the honourable member know how many constitutions would have to be changed in order to achieve the objective which he says we are pursuing?
against this background it is regrettable that the commission and the external action service have not yet come forward with a joint position for the december defence council.
you are quite correct.
we need to make digital skills training accessible and attractive for women.
in this area the commission has for example launched the digital skills and jobs coalition which carried out a special call for concrete commitments by private companies and public institutions.
every year the eu prize for women innovators recognises outstanding women entrepreneurs and inspires others to follow in their footsteps.
women make up less than one in five ict graduates in the eu and only seventeen of the almost eight million people working in ict are women.
working through the media programme on gender for two thousand and eighteen we shall track gender equality in the projects we are going to fund.
that is why the commission started a reflection process on how to take a more strategic approach on women in the digital field as part of the commission digital education action plan and the new skills agenda.
these findings are in line with other data which show that despite over representation of women among graduates in journalism and information and despite a high number of women working in the media sector in europe women remain under represented in management positions in media.
overall the european commission is very pleased that the european parliament shares our vision about the place of women in media organisations as well as having in media a more diversified and realistic picture of the skills and potential of men and women in society.
you know of the initiatives launched in the past years the gender pay gap action plan or the eu social pillar with its work life balance agenda.
the proportion of female directors graduating from film schools and entering the film industry is.
first it aims at challenging the gender stereotypes and bias towards women that persist in society and in the digital economy as well.
a similar picture arises when we look at film making.
we are working on several strands to prevent violence protect and support victims.
moreover the commission supports eu code week which had.
the third area of the strategy focuses on promoting digital entrepreneurship for women and lowering access barriers.
when it comes to the participation of women in media organisations or film making we can only agree with your report. significant inequalities including under representation and career barriers remain entrenched in the media sector.
the commission has funded web hubs the first european community that connects business ecosystems and provides them with mentoring tools to support women entrepreneurs in the digital sector.
we need to highlight role models and positive images of women in ict.
only one in five films is directed by a woman and the reason is not that there are no women directors.
the strategy proposes three ways to attract girls and women to take up science technology engineering and mathematics studies and go into ict related areas.
only one third of the board members of public broadcasters across the eu are women and like in other areas women are heavily under represented in top level positions accounting only for twenty two of board presidents.
this is a particular challenge related to digitalisation online violence and harassment against girls and women.
allow me also to excuse my colleague commissioner maria gabriel who is not able to be here today but who made sure to follow your works and whose commitment towards promoting women's participation and representation in the digital media and audiovisual sectors is very strong. mobilising women and encouraging them to work in the digital field and to specialise in ict is a needed step.
we need to boost the involvement of girls and women in digital technologies.
this is something that the european commission is attentive to through media pluralism monitoring which shows that in the eu there are only a few women on public service media boards.
i am pushing for the swift accession of the eu to the istanbul convention which will provide a clear framework for our actions in this area.
at the same time i will try again over this year to unblock the situation in the council as regards the women on boards directive. another key priority is to end violence against women and girls.
the second area of the strategy focuses on skills and education.
in two thousand and seventeen the commission also awarded the european digital skills award presented to projects that encourage girls and women to take up digital skills and careers.
this inevitably leads to a power imbalance and this imbalance is exacerbated by the precarious nature of media work leaving women more vulnerable to sexual harassment in the workplace.
to fundamentally reform the media sector public and private media need to mainstream gender equality in all their content and avoid gender stereotypes and the sexual objectification of women.
it is also critical to note that women of different ethnicity religion and sexual orientation and those with a disability face additional barriers to equality that must be addressed.
media organisations need robust internal procedures to assist victims to speak out.
following carrie gracie's public denouncement the extent of the pay differences between men and women in media and entertainment in the uk has been truly exposed.
but we know this is true everywhere in europe and in all sectors.
the creative and cultural sector which is historically seen as femalefriendly and where women outnumber men across the sector as a whole is a sector guilty of gender based discrimination.
in a world of images and narratives positive representation of women is key to combating prejudice and encourage necessary mind shifts.
as a cultural activist and as a feminist i see a link between the way women are represented in our society and consequential gender based violence. when women are absent from the public sphere they are disempowered objectified and subject to violence.
when women are represented according to patriarchal prejudices and stereotypes a culture of bullying and violence prevails. that's why we need women in decision making positions in the media sector as in all sectors.
on digitalisation we have a tendency to say that digitalisation is a great opportunity for society and it must be an opportunity for women as well.
i will add a negative view if we do not support women and girls to get into the digital sphere as professionals as experts we will undertake a very serious risk because digitalisation has the potential to increase the gaps in society and we have to actively work against this.
that is why the commission as i described at the beginning is undertaking a lot of steps and is funding a lot of projects to boost the potential of women and to encourage young girls to study the relevant subjects.
they keep convincing me that women are not in the pipeline but i always say that they do not have to be technicians or programmers or specialists for it for the technologies they can be marketing experts;
i have had many debates with the it industry we are urging the it companies to delete hate speech against many groups of our society including women.
i am urging law enforcement authorities in all the member states to react and to find the perpetrators to find the attackers and to punish them because online violence is a huge problem for the whole of society and is already very negatively affecting the freedom of work of journalists especially women.
we have to be better in this because this is a very serious problem.
lastly i want to explain my approach to the quota which has been discussed here as well.
i said many times that positive discrimination for me is not the option but we have to ensure that there will be fair competition; if the candidates are equally qualified if they have similar experience i don't see any reason why men should always get priority.
it will be good for society because our labour market our it sector our other promising sectors need more talents and we need to use the potential of women for the good of the whole society.
we have to encourage the member states but also the universities the politicians on all levels and the opinion leaders because i think that to achieve what we want to achieve in the field of gender equality we need also the change the mindset of our society and
i wish to take this opportunity to stress our deep commitment to delivering our decision to accept these refugees and asylum seekers.
in september two thousand and fifteen as a direct response to this humanitarian crisis the irish refugee protection programme was established.
no doubt about it but this is a very troubling accusation in an already distressing human rights situation.
mr president this important debate this afternoon on the links between human traffickers and ngos would not have been possible if it were not for the efdd group taking this initiative. this is an important topic and needs to be addressed and not simply brushed under the carpet.
the leaked report claimed criminal networks have been assisting migrants by giving clear indications on which direction they need to take to reach the ngo boats.
it is not just criminal gangs and ngos who are benefiting from this crisis but also islamic extremism.
current migration policies adopted by the eu and chancellor merkel have enabled terrorist organisations such as isis to smuggle their supporters into europe which has enabled them to carry out a number of attacks.
two three billion to helping refugees in syria and the region the second largest donor and since its inception almost four five hundred syrians have entered the uk under the syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme.
in december last year the financial times published excerpts from a leaked frontex report that suggested there was a high level of cooperation between people smugglers and ngos.
ukip have said from the very start of this crisis that we need to have a tough but fair policy on this crisis to stop innocent lives being lost at sea and to stop the profiteering of criminal gangs and isis.
frontex suggested the latter is due to ngos cooperating closer to libyan territorial waters' or even the lights used by rescue boats which the agency said acted as a beam for the migrants'.