kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
no country however wants to give up its share of the envelope. clearly such voluntary use would almost certainly make it impossible for the fund to reach the budget eventually earmarked to it.
indeed a growing number of european citizens are facing extreme forms of poverty because of this long crisis with severe consequences such as food deprivation and homelessness in all member states. the political importance of this instrument goes far beyond its financial size
as you may know despite this agreement at the highest level a group of member states continues to oppose this fund and in particular the fact that it would cover the whole eu.
the fead is not designed to help member states but to help people directly. children going to school on a hungry stomach suffer equally wherever they live.
in the uk there is a growing resentment towards those member states that are seen as being takers.
it is deeply regrettable that the uk with its great tradition of helping those less fortunate than itself has a growing resentment about funding this or that eu project while british people are suffering crippling cutbacks at home.
two thousand and fourteen january is by the way one of the coldest and most difficult months of the year for the target group.
the amendments could also delay the programming of the european social fund and erdf from next year.
fead would in fact be the only eu instrument that specifically targets people who are on the margins of society including people who are often well beyond the reach of the esf.
there are amendments from two political groups alde and the greens proposing that if member states decide not to take part in the fund they may use the funding for other eu programmes. i would have strong concerns that these amendments if approved would set a dangerous precedent for the reallocation of funding between programmes.
firstly as rapporteur i recommended that the proposed budget for fead be at least the equivalent amount of the existing food programme that is eur.
over forty million suffer from extreme material deprivation this means that they are unable to put a basic meal on the table every other day.
secondly one of the central issues to emerge in the debate concerns the participation of member states specifically whether the funding should be ringfenced for the most deprived as originally proposed by the commission or alternatively if it should be reallocated to other eu programmes not necessarily targeting the most deprived.
it would also introduce support for accompanying measures aimed at the social reintegration of end recipients that many of the organisations involved in food aid programmes already provide.
it is by no means an alternative or a substitute.
i would like to thank and pay tribute to the shadow rapporteurs to my colleagues in the employment and social affairs committee as well as to the rapporteurs for opinions from the other committees. over five hundred amendments were initially tabled and we managed to reach consensus on the vast majority of these on issues such as the broader scope developing the partnership principle the definitions mutual learning co financing reducing the administrative burden on ngos and developing synergies with other eu policies in the area of food waste and healthy diet.
fead is intended to complement national policies not replace them.
but it would enable the european union to continue to contribute towards alleviating some of the worst forms of poverty and social exclusion.
ending the food distribution programme next december without a replacement european programme would pose a direct threat to food aid programmes in many member states. the proposal that we are considering today envisages european support for national schemes that address poverty which exist in all member states but it would go beyond the food distribution programme by introducing the possibility for the distribution of basic material assistance. this could include for example starter packs for homeless people moving into a new home or clothing and footwear for children.
there is a technical amendment tabled in this regard for plenary which reflects the vote of the social affairs committee and i commend this amendment.
three five billion instead of the eur. two five billion which was proposed by the commission.
the employment and social affairs committee decided overwhelmingly to endorse the commission's original proposal on this point.
much of the discussion then in the employment and social affairs committee centred around two issues.
almost six million children do not have two pairs of shoes.
in short the fund for the european aid to the most deprived is a sign of european solidarity with those hardest hit by the crisis.
it is something tangible and real and this programme is part of that reality.
but what about subsidiarity when it comes to overseeing one another's budgets?
in our view this will help guarantee that all of the fund will be used because if a member state is allocated a certain amount under the mandatory option and does not use it then that portion of the fund goes back to the eu budget.
for those who will benefit from this fund it is literally a lifeline because it will ensure that those people who need it most have access to reasonable nutrition and to some of the basic necessities of life.
my group alde is fully in support of this fund.
subsidiarity is an argument that is used against the provision of food to needy eu citizens but it is totally ignored when other decisions are being taken.
we cannot force member states to use the fund but i believe that giving flexibility under the ring fencing of the fund is the best option to ensure that all of the fund will be used for food for the most deprived.
i believe many eu citizens would be appalled to know that some member states are blocking the adoption of this dossier and the setting up of this fund.
however there is a debate as to whether it should be mandatory or voluntary.
what about subsidiarity when it comes to deciding how taxpayers' money in member states is spent or what we do with depositors in cypriot banks?
this would mean that those member states which want to use their own systems and not the eu programmes can continue to do so while other member states who want to use this fund can use their own allocation and will have the legal base to use some of their cohesion funding for this hugely important fund.
it is my understanding that there is a blocking minority in the council and i have read the reasoned opinions put forward by some of these member states where they speak of subsidiarity.
we already know that fewer than twenty i think it is seventeen of the member states operate the current fund.
making the fund obligatory will not give them a reason to go up to eur.
thirdly a large blocking minority in council have said that they would rather have no fund at all than an obligatory fund.
secondly while poverty is equally horrible in all member states it is not the same in all member states.
compared with now there will be a transfer from countries like greece portugal and spain to countries like germany the uk the netherlands and sweden. this is the exact opposite of solidarity.
three five billion it will merely put the whole fund in danger leaving everybody out in the cold.
the amendments will prevent this;
these amendments will prevent this.
this will provide the highest level of solidarity for three main reasons firstly if all member states including germany and the uk are forced to participate the countries worst hit by the crisis will lose millions leaving people there to starve even if the fund goes up to eur. three five billion.
with the amendments aid organisations will have a choice of measures to help the most deprived in their country best.
using this as a negotiating tactic is plain silly.
i think this is also a very important point because we heard some concerns from uk and dutch members of the house.
but i think in all member states the most important starting point for any discussion is to ensure that there are economic policies in place that bring back economic growth to all member states and their regions.
however i think the large majority agrees that the fight against poverty has to be taken very seriously in the european union.
i now look forward to the vote and to your final decision on this matter.
in the house i stated my position in favour of our proposal both on political and technical grounds.
so in different countries different measures have to be taken to ensure that there are no holes in the social safety net.
we also believe that the fund should be made available to all member states although they should be given some flexibility as to how they use the new fund. on co financing i support an eighty five figure.
finally as the fund is now an esf programme i believe that we need to make sure that the rules are as simple as possible for those organisations which want to deliver this aid.
however i accept that in some cases ninety five would be more acceptable particularly in member states which are facing severe financial difficulties at the moment.
indeed we believe that food banks are currently one of the few growth industries in many parts of europe.
what happens to that money as foreseen under this proposal?
is it reallocated within the fund or does it go back to the general budget?
secondly in some accounts of the allocation that i have seen the uk and germany for example could do very well out of this fund in terms of getting significant amounts of money and other countries some of whom have been dependent on this fund such as spain and portugal would actually have a lower allocation of monies as a result
getting so much.
is that correct?
we cannot accept that frontex is being boosted when what we need is a mare nostrum. other colleagues will speak on specific points in the resolutions but it is clear that we as the left will continue to take the lead for a society that we build together and where we do not turn people against each other.
are we going to turn people against each other as the ppe just did or are we going to have politics economics social and human rights that actually bring us into the future together?
and deaths. that now means blockading action off the coast of north
migrants. police exercises sporadic or programmed will not be enough. people trafficking operations have reached industrial proportions.
he is only interested in getting elected.
but mr farage knows full well that this is complete and utter nonsense and that it is about as likely as thousands of martians coming to europe.
leadership is about the courage to take tough decisions and i welcome the words of mr juncker who is indeed showing leadership in this respect and i wish that the council would do the same. and i hope that parliament will show that leadership today.
but more funding is necessary as well as the use of a humanitarian visa.
my group fully supports the joint resolution and i am glad that we are sending a very strong signal to the commission and the council in particular which i think needs this message.
talking about legal migration is controversial and maybe not very popular but that is what leadership is all about.
europe urgently needs policies for legal immigration.
now giving asylum to those who have fled war and persecution is a legal as well as a moral duty. this year alone two zero people have drowned in the mediterranean.
some merely call for closing the borders.
but some politicians are shamelessly exploiting this tragedy for their own populist xenophobic anti eu agenda.
mr president the images of hundreds of dead bodies floating in the mediterranean is profoundly horrifying but the most tragic aspect of this disaster is that it is avoidable people have died unnecessarily.
seven we need immigration in order to maintain our prosperity.
we must fight the ruthless criminals who get rich trading in human lives.
we welcome the swift convening of the council but the outcome of their meeting is totally inadequate;
it is not about finding the lowest common denominator or only taking easy and popular decisions.
region to help improve border management.
to work. as long as that is the case we must continue to respond to the situation and alleviate suffering wherever possible.
member states will also step up cooperation against smuggling networks by working through europol and by deploying immigration officers to third countries.
they take the life savings of the desperate and leave them to drown in the sea.
we all know that this is a difficult and sensitive debate.
almost none of the migrants are libyans.
but for the whole of europe.
we are facing a difficult summer ahead.
it is about helping and engaging the migrants' home countries the countries that they journey through and those member states that face the greatest migratory pressure.
but this does not just include rescuing people at sea.
it is also in the short term and maybe most importantly about stopping the smugglers from putting thousands more lives at risk.
finally we must step up our combined efforts to help people who need political asylum.
and we have no illusions;
saving the lives of innocent people remains the priority.
still we made some progress. this includes the full and effective implementation of the common european asylum system to ensure the same standards in all member states an increase of emergency aid to front line member states and the deployment of support teams to help process asylum claims. leaders also agreed to set up
in fact all leaders expressed their readiness to help.
the commission the council and the high representative are finalising a roadmap that sets out precise actions an exact timetable and clear responsibility for what leaders agreed last week. on
it also means working more intensely within existing regional frameworks and with african partners on issues like development aid anti trafficking and refugee protection.
frontex europol and the european asylum support office need to be better equipped. lives can be saved by not allowing trafficking vessels to depart in the first place and by cutting off the fortunes that are being made by human traffickers.
true and meaningful solidarity is gained through trust a moral imperative and a sense of responsibility which can never be created through compulsion.
but many in this parliament believe that the solution lies in more forms of legal migration and binding quotas.
member states need to commit more resources and offer more humanitarian resettlement and aid.
my group did not sign the joint resolution because such actions merely address the symptoms rather than the causes.
every effort should be made to save lives create stability in conflict regions and assist member states overwhelmed by the challenges they face.
this needs urgent cooperation with third countries to be achieved.
we are hearing it now today from most members who believe in the values of the european union.
the commission came here today with a plan and i hear from my colleagues that they understand that triton and what we have heard from the council do not represent adequate solutions. we got inadequacy from the council last week but we had a plan today from many of my colleagues. we understand the humanitarian
it will not be yes because the council was dragged kicking and screaming to this meeting.
but we also understand that we have complex solutions concerning resettlement we have responsibility sharing and we are not all in this together.
imperatives and we understand that we have to save lives.
it has to become a reality.
but it is true that more needs to be done.
we cannot accept the loss of more lives.
we have to work on resettlement and relocation and to come up with concrete solutions. more is needed. the scope of the agenda will be geographically broad since other regions also have encountered or may encounter problems in future.
so now we need to act quickly.
card'. the debate today as i said was very important and what happened in the last few days is a clear sign of solidarity to save
we need to do our utmost to save lives but dealing with migration is not only dealing with a specific crisis of a specific region.
will develop the much needed comprehensive approach for migration.
also we have to intensify our efforts to engage with countries of origin and transit. in transit countries we need to find ways to build the necessary infrastructure where migrants can feel safe and not take dangerous journeys to europe. yes we will have to look at the dublin system to see whether it works. for me it is an open
it is very important to deal immediately with the crisis.
i would like to thank you indeed for this debate. it was not only a very interesting debate;
this is not about fortress europe protecting the borders;
indeed i fear we face a direct threat to our civilisation if we allow large numbers of people from that war torn region into europe.
we have surrendered our ability to get involved.
we have decided that we can deal with this on our own. so we decided that people can come and that people will not be sent back.
i would call on this parliament this commission to end the barriers to trade to stop the fisheries policy to ask the united nations to get involved and to try and help.
but there is a real and genuine threat.
we are guilty for this crisis we are directly guilty for the drownings that are going on and we are hypocrites in this place when we talk about poverty in africa when we pursue a common agricultural policy that puts barriers up to them selling us their agricultural produce where we have a fisheries policy that rapes and pillages their seas and has caused environmental destruction and we just assuage our consciences by giving away a bit of foreign aid.
the problem ladies and gentlemen is this the definitions for who qualifies for asylum are so wide they include not just people coming from war not just people coming from failed states;
i am sorry we simply cannot accept countless millions.
not only have stopped the boats from coming they have stopped people from drowning.
i promise my party will stand up to this impending disaster for all concerned.
but the real question we face is what are we to do?
mr juncker this morning seemed to suggest that perhaps he would even include people who were fleeing poverty.
mr president four years ago i stood here and said that bombing libya would be a huge mistake but of course the uk parliament and this parliament were desperate.
already in countries like mine seventy seven of the population say we cannot take immigration at current levels.
now i suspect that it would be a hell of a shock to many european citizens including the british to understand that we have already agreed a common european asylum system and what today is about and today's resolution is the direct implementation of it.
i am not blind to the human suffering that we have caused in many of these countries.
when isis say they want to flood our continent with half a million islamic extremists they mean it and there is nothing in this document that will stop those people from coming.
so now we have a failed state of libya which is now a conduit being used for criminal trafficking gangs trying to bring people to europe.
it is ironic that nine days before a british general election mr cameron and mr miliband are not engaged in this debate and in fact the uk can do nothing.
we are impotent;
so to solve this crisis there is no easy answer. to those who say that we should turn everyone away or those who say that we should let everyone in you are both wrong.
i very much hope that the commission and the council can address those particular questions.
but in reality we will not solve this problem in the long term until we stabilise the region and we know we all know that this will take time but our member states must do all they can with the tools available to them diplomacy targeted aid and open trade.
mr president my parents went to britain for a better life a better life for them and their future children and had they not taken that step had they not left their homes my life would be very different.
if they are offered refuge will it be permanent or will countries be able to ask them to return home when the reason for their asylum is no longer relevant?
let us not forget that seventy five of asylum applications take place in six countries germany sweden italy france hungary and the united kingdom and some of those countries are already facing pressures over legal migration.
people talk about the blue card system but that is aimed at attracting skilled migrants not people fleeing for their lives.
are we prepared to target and take out the people traffickers?
are we prepared for those eu countries with little immigration to take more of those fleeing persecution to reduce the pressure to reduce the suffering and to reduce the tragic scenes that we see on the borders of eu countries.
so if we want to stop these tragedies we have to start answering difficult questions.
asylum must be about people running for their lives not for those who understandably want a better economic life.
the asylum system must not be conflated with a migration system otherwise we undermine public trust in both.
are we prepared to help process applications swiftly and discourage people from making a journey?
some speak of compulsory shared solidarity but where is the talk of mutual trust that is sadly lacking between our member states?
so seeking new forms of legal migration will not resolve this problem.
so when i see poverty or when i see tragedies like this my heart wishes that we were able to offer that same opportunity to everyone but my head tells me that we cannot.
so last week's council was really an important step forward help for rescue operations targeting people traffickers who profit and prey on the misery of others helping to alleviate the problems of those at the sharp end.
but we also need to seek to distinguish between economic migration and helping genuine asylum seekers.
so when listening to the council and the commission we have to ask ourselves can we find a way for those fleeing persecution to seek asylum without having to make this perilous journey and can we do this without creating massive camps on that side of the mediterranean?
but those who seek asylum should be told quickly if they meet the criteria and if they are unsuccessful they should be returned quickly.
most of the people that we are actually talking about who we refer to as foreign fighters' are actually home grown.
what we are talking about here today is rescuing people who are drowning in the mediterranean because they are fleeing war and conflict and exactly the people that you are talking about;
mr kirkhope thank you for reminding us that together we must work on helping the source of the problem.
what more can we do to encourage member states to live up to those vital millennium development goals?
i was rather hoping for a question but thank you very much for your speech.
here we are talking about people fleeing persecution and part of the problem of this debate is that we are deliberately confusing legal migration and helping those in need and we have to put an end to that deliberate confusion.
at the same time we have to be quite clear and i was quite clear in my speech we should not shut our borders and let no one in and turn a blind eye but neither should we go down the road that you propose which is to let everyone in.
we have to process applicants fairly and let in those who genuinely are seeking refuge on our shores.
that is the dilemma we must deal with in the coming months. we must manage it as best and as humanely as possible.
there are longer term solutions to these problems such as more targeted development aids but for now our efforts have been focused on saving lives.
about our readiness to
act. we are getting serious about cooperation with countries of origin and transit including by inviting the relevant african leaders to a summit in malta.
for the first time there is a shared strategic approach'.
we should also remember that millions actually do stay in the region just ask the governments of lebanon and jordan for example.
those countries will need our longterm support.