kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
if parliament and the council can act quickly on this we hope to have the measure in place on one january. two thousand and eleven in parallel we are working with other members of the world trade organisation to obtain the necessary permission a wto waiver which has to be granted before the measure takes effect.
therefore in drawing up this proposal we have tried to take into account industrial sensitivities in the eu especially as regards textiles.
the european council recognised that in addition to the immediate and significant humanitarian aid and development assistance ambitious trade measures are essential for economic recovery and growth.
the security implications of a collapse of the pakistan state would be devastating to the security of the entire developed world.
now i use the word ask' with some care. asking is exactly what the british prime minister has had to do.
nevertheless it is in the uk's national interest that pakistan should now get trade preferences.
since joining the eu the united kingdom the world's fifth largest economy does not have the autonomy to determine trade policy even with a commonwealth country.
i rarely agree with david martin but i do on this.
trade preferences for pakistan at this time may perhaps help stop that happening.
however prime minister cameron was absolutely correct to ask for trade preferences to be granted to pakistan.
it is also a country which has some thirty nuclear warheads.
critical to food production at affordable prices are the millions of small farmers and landless farmers now at the mercy of the landlord class.
madam president clearly the twenty million people hit by the recent disastrous flooding in pakistan need immediate and substantial assistance especially the one hundred zero children left homeless by the flood and in danger of dying simply because of a lack of food.
tariff reductions must go to the workers and the poor and not to the landlords corrupt state officials or the profits of industrialists.
the distribution of free seeds fertilisers that are environmentally compatible and other utilities could lay the basis for a rapid recovery of food supplies but the liquidation of landlordism in pakistan and the distribution of land to the landless is a key to food sustainability.
that is very positive. the second thing that is sensible about the commission proposal is that it is time limited and does not unilaterally attempt to alter the gsp resolution.
what i welcome about the commission proposal is that we give pakistan the opportunity to trade its way out of some of its difficulties.
it says you have a duty yourself to put your country in order if you want to continue to qualify for these benefits'.
it is an intelligent proposal.
i welcome that because it still gives an incentive to pakistan to come into line with social and human rights standards between now and two thousand and fourteen in order to qualify for gsp in.
this will not significantly damage any european union industry and equally importantly in fact quite possibly even more importantly it will not harm the developing countries which are on a par with pakistan because none of the tariff lines affect products on the dda preference erosion list.
for that reason i support the point made by mr karim that it is in everybody's interest to have a stable regime there in a region of great volatility. i also have to say that a union which was founded on the principles of peace and prosperity for our citizens should be in the vanguard of bringing peace and prosperity to other parts of the world so i support the proposals here this evening but i would like the commission to answer
what pakistan is trying to do at this point is actually to help itself out of the mess that it is in after the devastating floods.
if the factories were in flood hit areas they would not be able to produce so it is not surprising that the factories concerned are not in flood hit areas.
the direct aid that could be put in is miniscule compared to what the need actually is.
distribution of the income from the additional exports is important we know that for infrastructure for energy supplies for schools for roads etc.
if pakistan had a greater diversity of industrial sectors we would not be concentrating so much on textiles.
we regret that the provisions enabling non conviction based confiscation in case of the death of the suspect or accused person were deleted from the proposal. the council and parliament have made a declaration inviting the commission to analyse the feasibility of introducing rules
helps protect the eu economy against infiltration by criminal groups and returns assets to governments and citizens.
the commission intends to follow that by supporting an exchange of best practices between member states.
today's tools for freezing managing and confiscating criminal assets are clearly not effective enough.
finally the directive recognises in a non binding provision that the social reuse of confiscated assets can be a valuable tool in this area.
at present the amounts recovered from organised crime in the member states seem modest compared to the estimated revenues of organised criminal groups.
for this reason the commission proposed in two thousand and twelve the directive which we are debating today to simplify existing rules and fill gaps which benefit convicted and suspected persons.
on non conviction based confiscation which might lead to further legal proposals in this field.
it introduces new provisions on asset management and statistics and allows for confiscation in situations where the suspect or accused person cannot be convicted due to flight or illness.
if a directive is adopted then the british government should unilaterally refuse to transpose it into uk law.
what happened to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty?
but the single biggest reason for the increased threat of crime in the uk and europe is the eu's open borders policy.
indeed it will be illegal under the eu's freedom of movement directives to discriminate against criminals.
the bill of rights is a constitutional act and is still in force.
that means that no government or judicial authority can impose a fine or take away someone's property for an alleged criminal activity but must first secure a criminal conviction in a court of law.
open borders mean that we cannot stop criminals big and small organised and disorganised from coming to our country.
all uk meps should vote against this report.
our freedoms and liberties are being eroded and destroyed and the pretext is always the same that we have to be protected from crime and terrorism.
billions and billions of the income from organised crime selling people drugs weapons or other things are invested in yachts expensive houses hotels gold money etc.
and this is money that belongs to the victims and to the citizens.
that is why it is so important to hit the criminals where it hurts most getting the money. and that is why this directive is extremely important.
i am also very happy that we can decide on this before the elections.
i think it is important to put that on the record because she has worked particularly hard.
i am mindful that in ireland we have the criminal assets bureau and it does extraordinarily good work and really important work to target criminals and to remove from them the profits of their evil doings.
i am minded to say that when it comes to fuel laundering the loss to our state from illegal activities concerning fuel is enormous and i am hoping that a new technology will root out that particular crime.
but today is an important day and i compliment all of those who have made it possible.
i must take this opportunity to praise the work of the organised crime task force in northern ireland for its role in apprehending dangerous counterfeiters smugglers and traffickers and seizing their criminal assets.
it is also to my disappointment and dismay that two of the main governing parties in northern ireland saw fit to block the implementation of the national crime agency.
however as i said we must take our time and get it right.
we cannot accept for our people a hierarchy of discrimination criteria or the fact that the moment you leave the workplace the law is no longer an ally.
let us be uncompromising for justice and let us create a union of consistency human dignity equality the rule of law and respect for human rights.
what is fair treatment for one european should be fair treatment for another.
fellow meps and european governments on the question of the horizontal anti discrimination directive this is simply not one of those times.
they understand non discrimination with greater sophistication and greater urgency than any eu institution.
for eleven years we have waited and for eleven years the council has stalled.
we have heard and we can see every day millions of testimonies about what the situation is.
since henry viii i think this has been at the heart of british geopolitical thinking and since this is a five hundred year tradition i respect it.
let's be clear the result must be respected regardless of the small margin.
the decision that the british people made three years ago was not an enormous surprise.
if europe wants to be successful it has to get rid of all the obstacles and the postbrexit fatigue be very clear about terms and conditions when it comes to new candidate member states and it must also be very clear with internal or external saboteurs who are trying to slow the process.
regardless of whether there is an agreement or no agreement the uk should leave and i also think that it is in the best interest of europe to let the uk go.
the uk must leave and bear all the consequences of its decision.
so as far as the uk is concerned the decision to divorce was taken.
mr president i would just like to confine my brief intervention to the subject of brexit something which we have been trying to come to terms with for the last three years since we knew the result of the referendum.
but europe and the european union must also be very clear about the challenges it is facing and must be very clear about its priorities.
there are still a number of problems to be solved.
it's not clear in the withdrawal bill how independent the independent monitoring authority will be and we have to be sure that it is a real independent monitoring authority.
well i can tell you this problem needs to be solved in all clarity before that there is no deportation of these people.
thank you very much madam commissioner.
however you know that reaching the required unanimity has proven to be difficult despite the efforts and different attempts of each and every presidency since the proposal was tabled more than ten years ago.
as i said earlier as the commissioner also said and many of you referred to on thursday the ministers in the epsco council will discuss how to enhance antidiscrimination in the european union. i personally remain available to exchange with you on any outcomes and next steps.
we must enhance it.
i would also like to thank you for your efforts to keep this important topic high on the political agenda.
i couldn't agree with you more that equality and non discrimination are at the heart of our common european values.
we must work together on this.
the finnish presidency is launching a high level discussion on the overarching topic of anti discrimination hoping to gain insight into the current situation and achieve muchneeded new momentum for progress.
allow me to say that the council has repeatedly and continuously recognised the importance of this file.
my thanks to donald tusk.
this is our moment to rise above the squabbling all the alternative political agendas and show that the european parliament can be decisive when it matters. the eu must not make another sequencing mistake. let's get brexit done without delay.
i hope there will be some proper reflection in due course on why the british people chose to leave the european union and i hope that before december two thousand and twenty there will be technical alternatives acceptable technical alternatives to customs checks.
when it passes i trust this will provide the signal that some here are looking for.
we've now seen this in the most recent negotiations and at the european council. what a change in atmosphere.
they want the urgent consent of this house and we should deliver this with all speed.
there is no appetite for extension.
after all the departure date of thirty one october was set not by the british government but by the european council back in april.
some colleagues say they want to see how the british parliament is responding but i would say our task is separate.
some shenanigans may follow but it's not our task to join in.
in any case the withdrawal agreement is being put to the house of commons today.
we have all seen at the european elections that people come out and vote in large numbers. they want jobs growth and security.
we have of course to listen to them.
minister i cannot understand why the council is proposing to cut the financing by eur ninety million to this successful project which we the parliament are defending.
and thirdly completion of the economic and monetary union.
there is no worse signal that we can give to the beneficiaries than a european union not capable of paying its bills.
students and researchers expect support farmers expect support and cities and villages expect support through cohesion policy.
as the digital revolution releases the individual confucius is proven right europe will agonise at leisure unless logic triumphs over largesse.
it results in negative interest rates undermining the very foundation of capitalism.
in my short time in this parliament i have experienced a new sensation not having to worry about how much anything costs.
it also creates a massive contingent risk as pensioners are forced to chase higher income.
the carbon footprint is staggering avoidable and flies in the face of wisdom.
offices equipment travel chauffeurs public relations every possible trapping of power provided with no expense spared.
at the moment the internal accounting procedure is not working.
those must be accounted for.
i cannot imagine a situation where the executive is refusing to appear before the committees of this parliament.
the third thing is conflicts of interest around sponsorship;
transparency is one of the essential ingredients in terms of giving trust to our voters.
after what i have heard today in this chamber i have no doubt that we should treat the british request for an extension in all seriousness.
this is the reason even though we haven't yet spent and hopefully not eleven years on sitting on the issue in the council.
we have an overall understanding that it is a matter of public responsibility where you put your money where you get your money and whether you pay your taxes or not.
we were able to abolish roaming surcharges in the european union but what will happen with those roaming surcharges after brexit? it will depend on negotiations between eu twenty seven and the united kingdom. we were able to agree on the general data protection regulation to protect the privacy of our people and we were able to agree in free data flows to support
brexit means brexit.
during the last five years as commission vice president responsible for the digital single market i used to deal with very practical issues.
we should be ready for every scenario.
as you know it is based on the deal that we agreed with the previous government.
uk and the british request for an extension of the article fifty process.
our people. thank you very much.
now i can only hope that the leaders draw the right conclusions when they discuss the accession process before the zagreb summit in may. two thousand and twenty together with commission president elect von der leyen the leaders also discussed the future of the european union in terms of its strategic agenda the future eu budget and the incoming commission's priorities. we are determined that the eu leads the way in fighting the climate crisis. a socially just transition to a green economy is not only a necessity
jobs. as this is my last appearance here with jean claude juncker i would like to express my greatest appreciation of him and his work. these were a difficult five years for the union but we have always cooperated in good faith. our respective roles and different perspectives
when it comes to brexit the european council endorsed the deal reached by our negotiator and prime minister johnson's government.
but also an opportunity to improve our environment while creating
but one thing must be clear as i said to prime minister johnson on saturday a no deal brexit will never be our decision.
the revised deal was possible and acceptable to the eu because firstly it had the support of ireland; secondly it had the support of the commission ensuring that all our negotiating objectives were met;
sometimes meant political disagreements. but i can say without hesitation that jean claude has always been devoted to europe and served europe
i listened to prime minister johnson in the same way as i listened to prime minister may.
i wonder whether you mr smith who have made your entire career about demanding a referendum on independence for one part of the uk might consider the hypocrisy of refusing to accept the verdict when the uk as a whole votes for independence.
that's a position that i took before during and since the campaign.
it's simply not the case that i repeatedly said that during the election campaign.
you'll hear a quote from a two thousand and fifteen interview before the campaign began in which i made very clear and i've stuck to that position all the way through that i thought the best outcome for us would be a swiss type outcome.
i have not changed my position.
so in this context i have big expectations that on thursday i will hear from the relevant ministers from the member states whether the eleven yearold directive is still fit for purpose or whether they see some room for improvements. let's look at it freshly and newly
we are running and we do a lot against hatespeech online but this is also turning against politicians and journalists who have the courage to write about discrimination.
so that's why we wanted to strengthen the ability of the equality bodies in all the member states to act and to be the helping hand in the member states for these kind of cases so that the victims of such discrimination can go and ask for support and use access to justice because it's not a privilege it's
i was happy that i heard this also from the member states who did not want to adopt the legislation that this would be a wrong signal that some of the member states would be out of such a principle thing.
maybe i will hear again the same arguments which i was listening to over the five years but i am sure that this debate will be very useful and it will give fresh impulse for the new commission and for the council to continue working on it.
you also mentioned the difficulty with the implementation of the antidiscrimination legislation because we have legislation in place already.
i only want to tell you that we did from the side of the commission everything possible to unblock it but with all that effort of course we could not guarantee adoption in the council.
maybe you remember i also made a strong commitment and promise in two thousand and fourteen when i started my mandate in this area.
this is an option which is procedurally okay but this is an option which is morally absolutely wrong.
it was the money competences subsidiarity you mentioned some of them.
i remember in two thousand and fourteen when we started to speak about the possibility to go through enhanced cooperation which might be the solution because this requires unanimity so this is an option.
so we are working on many different things but the thing we speak about here today is a core one.
on discrimination and what to do i spoke about our efforts to decrease or eliminate hatespeech online which is fuelling discrimination and viceversa as these two phenomena are fertilising each other. we already started to work on artificial intelligence and there are still ethical rather than legislative but still ethical rules so that not to copy paste the discriminatory
it's prohibited by the law.
a man and a woman same job different money.
in many cases the women are not aware of the gap.
let's be honest it requires courage these days in many member states to fight against discrimination and not all politicians are willing to undertake such a risk because we live in an era of hatespeech online which is turning not only against discriminated people and this is another fight
i want the people to decide. and our slogan didn't exist in.
i'm not sure too much about this parliament but in my country people make the laws.
given this i would like to know why messrs juncker tusk and barnier feel that it's okay to meet uk opposition leaders and the likes of tony blair in a blatant attempt to interfere in british politics.
in the twenty years to two thousand and eighteen the eu enjoyed a total trade surplus of nearly seven hundred and fifty billion with the uk.
it seems martin selmayr hinted at the eu intent when he was overheard saying that northern ireland would be the price that britain would pay for brexit.
the uk has also contributed a net figure of one hundred and twenty billion to the eu project over the same period and the uk is one of only six member states that meet nato defence spending commitments that provide security to everybody in this place.
i say enough'.
mr president i've always said the european union is world class at one thing wasting money and this discharge report rather makes the point again.
i say let's take back control of our money with a clean break brexit.
do the british people really want to funnel another thirty billion plus into the european union's coffers for a new european treaty or do they want to take back control?
but the last time i checked finland was a member state and the council was made up of member states.
so two weeks ago i stood here and i asked the council presidency this very same question what are you going to do about private sponsorships?
the eu not for the many but for the few namely a few corporate sponsors.
they show trust in the european project and we should be cherishing that trust.
to sketch out the problem for you romania was sponsored by coca cola at a time when the council was negotiating rules on foodstuff labelling.
the incoming croatian presidency has published a paper on how private companies can seize the business opportunities that come with their presidency.
finland accepted one hundred bmw vehicles while it was reviewing emission norms for cars.
in the last european elections more young people than ever cast their vote.
mr president i welcome this report and especially its critical stance on the private sponsorships of the rotating presidency of the council.
these sponsorships undermine the trust that we were given and they show the eu at its worst.
instead of this what we need is an eu that puts the public good first and curbs the power of vested interests.
so i will ask you again will you choose to be a force that undermines eu citizens' trust or will you tackle these private sponsorships and work with the european parliament to reinforce trust in the eu?
the finnish presidency then dodged the question and said well this is a matter for the member states.
discrimination is frequently identified by international and regional human rights bodies as one of the greatest human rights challenges facing eu member states.
the twin principles of equality and nondiscrimination are the bedrock of the international human rights framework.
it is incredibly important that both the presidency and the commission recognise the urgent need for movement on this directive.
these gaps leave substantial numbers of our citizens vulnerable to discrimination based on inherently personal qualities like their age their disability sexual orientation or religious beliefs. in the past eleven years the world has moved on.
many eu countries have adopted more progressive equality laws and improved nondiscrimination protection for their citizens.