kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
but it is right that we plan beyond immediate humanitarian relief that we help refugees to gain livelihoods to integrate in their new societies to assist host communities to receive them and to maintain cohesion in countries which are themselves fragile.
madad means hope and it is about sending a signal to the syrian refugees that the world has not forgotten them that there is hope.
it focuses on providing economic opportunities supporting the resilience of communities building more security and development opportunities and providing better migration management in the sahel lake chad horn of africa and north africa.
a very good framework for more eu visibility for doing what our people fund us to do.
to date we have received pledges from nine member states to contribute to the fund.
as we have heard one of them is on the table of the valletta summit the emergency trust fund for africa.
we are looking forward to the outcomes of the valletta summit.
the second trust fund we have created is the regional trust fund in response to the syrian crisis.
building links between development and security;
today we have one hundred and twenty million people needing help for their very survival.
of those displaced the largest share live in our neighbourhood.
in this world of ours unfortunately the number of people that depend on aid to survive has been growing exponentially.
that task is morally right but it is also in our own self interest.
they are displaced by conflicts or by natural disasters.
and supporting very concrete actions in terms of migration and refugee management.
if we want to have a more manageable situation in which we can be good citizens and help people we absolutely must increase our attention and support for people where they are in lebanon jordan and turkey as well as in the
i want also to flag up that in this trust fund we are proposing to allocate eur two hundred million to a specific window for morocco algeria tunisia libya and egypt. i do not need to explain why these countries are such an important target area for that kind of assistance.
having a chance to help them to get the education they deserve is also a way to help their families to stay and not to be on the move.
that is why we in the commission have decided that in addition to our normal development and humanitarian work we are going to make use of the new trust fund instrument because this has the capacity to pool large sums which otherwise may be dispersed in
many of them are on their way to europe because they lost hope for themselves and for their children.
own capacity to cope with their development challenges.
we are placing this.
union in terms of collective action.
the us is our most important partner and the most aligned in terms of how we approach this kind of crisis and we need to expand beyond an immediate urgent response to creating fiscal capacity for countries to have a buffer against crises to get the development community more aligned in how we deal with fragility.
we are one of the very few funders that have never given up on the most affected parts of syria where bombs fall and people are living in tragic circumstances.
this is hugely important for europe's own standing and we will face this much more effectively working together.
the specificity of these trust funds is that they are a new way for us to better organise and deploy our resources in a more agile manner but it does not diminish accountability and we are of course going to have the reporting to and engagement with the european parliament.
the last signing came yesterday.
in other words we have to invest more in conflict prevention conflict resolution and disaster risk reduction in things that help fewer people to be affected in the future by what inevitably climate change is going to cause more disasters and what unfortunately violent extremism is producing more conflicts and more severe dramas.
it has been pointed out and rightly so that we have to reach out to other key development partners and we are doing so.
more wealth means more responsibility and i share the comments that have been made that we need to call for mobilisation so we can help people and help people help themselves.
two three billion in the context of what is now ten billion from the commission to address the refugee crisis inside and also outside.
this goes without saying.
i hope that we will see proposals ranging from border control common defence and security to rethinking dublin but most importantly more coordinated and coherent medium to long term engagement with the countries that need our assistance to continue to build their
my second general observation is that in the same way that the financial and economic crisis has pointed out to us that we have work to do in terms of building the institutions and capabilities to deal collectively with this crisis the refugee crisis is also exposing some of the deficiencies of the european
i myself was in the united states last week to meet with the world bank the imf and the us authorities.
i hope we will see that these trust funds which are by the way a new platform for action will gain more traction and that we will see more contributions from our member states and i would also say from others. there have been some encouraging signals for example from the us that they may now join us in the syria trust fund;
an african problem that is caused by tariffs that compete harshly against african businesses; and an african problem that supports those governments that terrorise their own people. the eu is no friend of africa. the eu is no friend of its african people.
this damages africa's ability to feed its own nations through issues such
as the nigerian authoress chimamanda adichie once said africans do not need limp gifts of fish.
the eu is no friend of its continent's potential for being an economic power as the eu's protocolonial policies are indeed driving down the ability of that continent to survive.
nobody will be able to cope with the cost and suffering of those crises.
of course we all should have seen the signs which were there already.
how are we going to respect country ownership? how are we going to stick to our human rights based approach to aid?
this money is mostly not new money and we have to understand that it is going to be at the cost of some ongoing activities.
i think you were absolutely right.
i regret very much that my country finland is reducing its development aid by.
many thousands more remain in detention following arbitrary arrests and are subject to widespread human rights abuses.
i would also like to emphasise that we have been working through the united nations with regard to the human rights situation in syria with the special session of the human rights council in august adopting a strongly worded resolution on syria thanks to the eu's commitment.
arbitrary arrests and vague accusations indicate that president al assad's regime has become mistrustful of virtually every syrian citizen and can no longer tell the difference between compassion and confrontation.
all governments should be afraid of their people.
however people should not be afraid of their government and for that matter the syrian regime has crossed all the lines.
on the internet we can see the disproportionate government led violence against unarmed citizens.
we can see the brave demonstrators defying fear and risking their lives to get stories out.
parents who receive the bodies of their murdered children hide them and bury them in secret because the government also attacks funerals.
bashar al assad's government and his collaborators have no legitimacy whatsoever.
the international community lacks a un mandate because china and russia object to a un security council resolution but the eu can and must do more.
firstly we must call for an international criminal court investigation into the crimes committed and secondly we must demand targeted sanctions for those who violate human rights.
we are syria's most important trading partner and therefore we need to apply targeted sanctions to the economic elites and give them a clear choice doing business with europe means doing no business with bashar al assad.
the report does not seem in my view to fully reflect the fact of the disproportionate response by russian forces which involved bombing civilian areas of georgia like gori and allowed systematic ethnic cleansing of georgians from south ossetia and the occupation of georgian territory by abkhazian forces.
i also agree very much with everybody who has said that the territorial integrity of georgia and of all countries has to be respected.
we have a monitoring mission which is important but it has to have access to all parts of georgia in order to support displaced persons and others.
and you already have a speaker on behalf of the ppe group.
it is very difficult in circumstances like these to say who started things and who followed. what is important is that the facts remain on the ground a year after this conflict and that they violate a number of principles which the european union has to support.
faits accomplis created by the use of force are not acceptable and can never be acceptable. secondly there is the right of displaced persons to return to their homes and properties the basic freedom of movement as you said to cross the dividing lines.
ownership of property and settlement should be at the centre of our policies and initiatives need to be undertaken to address these humanitarian and human rights issues independently of the outcome of any political settlement.
thirdly the hostilities in south ossetia have proven that there is no such thing as a frozen conflict.
a lack of interest on the part of the international community may lead to chronicity and an unsettled conflict is a potential threat to peace and stability.
efforts now should be diverted towards a political settlement however difficult this is and the political negotiations launched in geneva immediately after the hostilities should be encouraged to continue.
we also support an agreement to facilitate the procedures for issuing short stay visas and on readmission between the european community and georgia and we are satisfied with the post conflict assistance package which is operating well.
this needs to be addressed in the best way possible.
here is my question is this actually going to be implemented in a way which will be critical when needed?
there is one example in the court of auditors' report that i find particularly instructive in which it describes a sewage system in greece they built the plant they built the network but nobody had connected the system to people's homes even though the project had been six years in the making from two.
its responsibilities for implementing the budget.
chapter three focuses on the extent to which the performance framework enables the commission to monitor and steer progress towards europe.
in this regard three features of the report deserve particular notice.
the structuring of chapters to reflect the headings of the multiannual financial framework which came into force in two thousand and fourteen is a most valuable input towards the mid term review of the mff.
thus the report represents a most timely and valuable input to discharge designing and putting into practice results oriented budgeting is an urgent necessity so that citizens recognise that their money is being put to the best possible use.
two thousand and twenty the stated purpose is that checking the legality and reliability of accounts is intended to assist in identifying risks affecting economy efficiency and effectiveness.
for the current cohesion policy programmes some attempts have been made to reduce errors through simplification for example through the introduction of cohesion flat rate payments and having one set of common regulations for the five different funds although each of the individual funds still has its own rules. hopefully
indeed they already have the information to stop or correct many of the errors and they should use that information.
we have to work with our people in the commission and of course in the member states on a culture shift. this is not an easy thing but it is a must if we are to be successful in making the best use of our taxpayers' sacrifices.
between compliance with the rules and what the budget actually delivers for our people.
eight as the budget commissioner this year i have been visiting projects funded by the eu cancer research in finland sme support in the uk connectivity of citizens in the cohesion countries and rural internet but i also have seen that sometimes
we have multiple projects with thousands and thousands of people who have to grasp the concept of project management that we have introduced from the eu a concept that may be easy for some but it is certainly not easy for a small farmer or for an sme
owner so we have to work on simplifying the rules so they can be followed and then we have to come with a hammer when the rules are not followed.
we do have now in the new mff a better platform because we have placed performance front and centre.
let me finish with the question that was posed to me on name and
in the error rate and this is why in the commission we strongly recommend that we think about a residual error rate as an acceptable measurement because if people take measures to correct then that should be a positive
agility focus on priorities impact this is what the discussion on the budget absolutely must be on.
thing. we should be saying bravo we recognise you have done
it does not mean we turn our backs on compliance with the rules not at all.
i think it is very important that we take this focus on performance extremely seriously.
two how do we encourage people to do what the court tells us could be done if you take corrective measures and the error rate will go down? there we hit a problem which is the multiannual nature of our programmes. when an error is detected in one year but only corrected in the next that is not reflected
right now they are too complicated to be followed!
i agree with those who have said that the persistence of the error rate is something that is undermining the credibility of the european union.
it. at the moment it is difficult to do it in a multiannual fashion.
there has not been enough thought put into how this particular project connects with the rest of the economy and there are examples where we could have and must do better.
for every project for every penny we have to ask ourselves if this is the best use of money.
next year's mid term review of the multiannual financial framework provides a crucial opportunity to rethink our priorities and the design of some spending schemes.
this year it comes at a particularly difficult time. on behalf of all of us at the court i would like to express our deepest condolences to the french people and to the families of the victims of the recent terrorist attacks in paris.
taken together our audit results over recent years point to a need for a wholly new approach decision makers must align the budget better with the european union's long term strategic priorities and make it more capable of responding in a crisis;
our report identifies long standing financial management issues that need to be addressed.
they are reliable and we have issued a clean audit opinion to that effect.
in the meantime more must be done with the tools already in place.
that simpler rules are framed to achieve results;
we have recommended the action the commission should take to improve transparency about longterm cash flow needs payment errors and corrections made as well as the results of spending the european union budget.
legislators need to ensure that spending schemes are clear about the results to be achieved and the risk it is acceptable to take;
we believe that work we have started already on preventive and corrective action in relation to errors is bringing positive results eur.
in conclusion president caldeira said we must invest money better.
we have to take this into account.
secondly we fully agree with the court about the importance of focusing on performance.
in order by signing them for an eighth year in a row.
in the briefest possible terms i believe that the focus over the years has been a bit one sided on error rates and observance of rules.
however it should be used as an indicator to find sectors where programmes are not performing and there is an excessively high rate and to reorientate the whole exercise of discharge towards results.
secondly because the high emphasis on compliance comes at the expense of evaluation of outcomes and quality of spend. to achieve those we need greater levels of transparency and of accountability. both of these we can only really achieve when the people elected by the taxpayers
for the first time the court put at least some emphasis on the performance of the budget instead of mainly pointing to errors.
this is what we have been asking for more transparency in the use of money and finding systematic weaknesses in different areas of spending.
so i encourage the court to continue on the path it has chosen and to go much further next year.
we need total transparency and country specific information.
that would be the way forward in achieving a budget focused on results and not just that to be able to justify to our citizens how we are dealing with our finances.
however i would also suggest that the parties report back to the committee on transport one year after the regulation's introduction.
any set of flight time limitation rules therefore needs to be considered as a whole package rather than a set of individual isolated requirements.
i assure you that i am the last person to take lightly safety issues having been responsible for the initial introduction of mandatory reporting across the eu as well as improving airport security following nine eleven and much more.
the most protective rules will always apply ensuring that the highest levels of safety are always guaranteed.
to be clear this regulation has no mandate to affect collective bargaining agreements. it is purely an overriding regulatory framework with safety at its heart.
having worked as airline crew in this sector for nearly twenty five years prior to becoming an mep and having dealt with flight time limitation and industrial agreements for much of that time in my capacity as a trade union negotiator my expertise in this area has proved extremely useful.
to conclude the hugely respected uk civil aviation authority and all other member state national aviation authorities and member state governments support this revision and i hope that we will reject this resolution.
i come from an island nation that relies on a safe and reliable transport sector particularly in the area of aviation to transport people and goods and i want to ensure that our passengers can fly in the knowledge that the highest levels of safety are in place
this package of measures contains a number of welcome provisions that should deliver significant safety improvements in the regulation as a whole.
for nearly four years the trade unions industry naa experts and others have been involved in these discussions following extensive research in line with the latest scientific and technical developments.
second the eu rules on home standby have been developed in such a way that no crew member will be on flight duty after more than eighteen hours awake.
mr president the commission proposal on flight time limitations is not a typical legislative proposal.
the commission will request easa to adopt its certification specifications in such a way that no crew member will be on flight duty after more than eighteen hours awake. third on the question of night flights the commission will request easa to prescribe in its certification specifications that airlines will be required to apply appropriate fatigue risk management for flight duty periods longer than ten hours at night. and fourth stakeholders including aircrew representatives
flight time is not an unregulated business.
this is something where we certainly have to be careful as to what decision we make when i am told that pilots are falling asleep all the time.
aviation safety is of paramount importance and at the moment having different rules in every member state is not safe for passengers it is not safe for pilots and is not safe for cabin crews. these rules are about closing loopholes such as resting times and crossing time zones.
do we really want pilots who have crossed four time zones to have no additional rest requirements?
in the uk we have absolutely no rules on this at the moment.
fatigue management regulations are necessarily complex.
it is impossible to cherry pick one or two individual requirements without looking at the whole package.
it would mean politically negotiating safety rules and fatigue management rules instead of basing our judgment on scientific evidence and expert knowledge.
of course scientific evidence evolves.
that is why the review of these rules in three years' time is so important.
the civil aviation authority came out and said that.
itself. i therefore urge you to reflect again very carefully on the full consequences of your decision before proceeding
most of the member states who voted against or abstained did not challenge the risk assessment but instead openly invoked national political reasons.
mr president honourable members the time has come for everyone to step up and take their full responsibilities.
it was supported by a qualified majority of member states but this adoption had no influence on the voting behaviour of the same member states which continue to invoke political reasons.
derives directly from the set of political guidelines on the basis of which this commission was appointed especially under the heading of a union of democratic change this is very important a union of democratic change.
in case of no opinion gmo and comitology legislation requires the commission to adopt a decision alone.
we are in a very paradoxical situation and our proposal aims to solve it.
the commission's proposal sets out a pragmatic and legallysound way forward consistent with the subsidiarity principle.
some suggested that what is needed is not to change the system of authorisation but to improve the risk assessment of
this would also run the risk of not allowing the commission to take a decision be it an approval or a rejection on an application.
i believe in science independent science.
i just want to say that i was in here at.
i welcome the debate because it allows the facts to elevate above some of the emotion.
i am also aware that young scientists including young irish scientists are leaving the european union because there is not a welcoming environment for research in this area. i would like to compliment the former chair of the agriculture commission paolo de castro and support his comments.
in the medical sector they welcome it with open arms.
one country grows gm.
some of the comments here i would utterly disagree with because i approve and accept the authorisation procedures that are in place.
it is a rarity when biotech companies and environmental ngos are in agreement.
citizens and environmental groups have genuine concerns surrounding gm foods including about their environmental impact and their implications for food sovereignty and these are clearly reflected in the decision by nineteen member states to opt out of gm cultivation.
however i urge colleagues not to allow the commission off the hook on this issue.
it must go back to the drawing board and come up with a new proposal which is fit for purpose.
mr president providing food for a growing world population is going to be a big challenge and it is clear that new technology including gm will have to be a significant part of the solution.
those two points of principle must prevail the single market and sound evidence based policymaking.
first we would be allowing food policy to be based on emotion not on sound evidence based science.
contrary to your comments it has nothing to do with my political views or thoughts of the european union.
science technology and gm have to be part of that solution.
reason should dictate whether we decide to use gmos in the first place.