kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the sheer hypocrisy of criticising trump when you already have put tariffs on steel and aluminium amazes me but it does show the folly of us going for a transition period. it shows the utter stupidity of the labour party wanting to sign us up to this permanently because in this usa dispute we now find ourselves trapped
so please ms may at this summit next week do what trump has done stand strong against the european commission against the unelected bullies.
we need to be free.
we need to act.
we voted brexit we voted to make our own trade policy and our own trade decisions. we could do a deal with america in forty eight hours.
ms may we did not vote for a transition period we voted to leave this organisation we voted to leave the customs union we voted to leave the single market.
now you may well scream and shout about his aluminium and steel tariffs but the eu puts tariffs on thirteen zero goods coming into it meaning that shoes and bras and food are more expensive for simple ordinary folk who do not understand this because it has never been properly explained to them.
bearing in mind the italian elections and weren't they wonderful folks?
madam president it will cost ireland financially and we do need support. in that context i would ask the european union and the ecb to stop ireland borrowing and burning money that the ecb is forcing us to do.
the european council will decide next week on additional guidelines on the future relationship and we will vote on our expectations regarding the future in tomorrow's resolution. hopefully all that will allow us to enter into formal negotiations as soon as possible.
we have to remember that we have also article eight of the treaty on european union according to which the union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries as close as possible in the interest of all our citizens and businesses and founded on the values of the union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
we are all involved institutions states citizens and businesses.
do you not think you could have said something more than warm words flannel and nonsense?
may i congratulate you for being the very first united kingdom conservative to actually contribute to this debate today.
does it not strike you as strange that of all your colleagues who are acting as the midwife to the brexit vote we have heard plenty from the brexiteers the charlatans the shysters the useful idiots today you are the first united kingdom conservative the government of the united kingdom to actually speak today?
it was the claim itself that was a lie taking back control because as we see brexit develop we see that it does the exact opposite.
they are losing control over the possibilities that they have in their lives.
we need to say very clearly that when this is going to unfold when we are going to lose control who is going to win from this?
it is going to be the bullies it is going to be the people with no scruples. this parliament has to make sure that the good people are not going to lose control that we stand up for their rights that we stand up for them having control over their lives even in this very horrible situation.
millions of citizens non british and british eu citizens are losing control over their lives.
we see the people on the island of ireland losing control over the peace process which they thought was going in the right direction.
no one has the right to strip people of their citizenship against their will. that's the view of many legal experts but that's what will happen unless there is action now and it's a question of political will.
the petition received more than five zero signatures in just the first few days.
i welcome the fact that this resolution again proposes that the eu twenty seven examine how to mitigate the loss of rights of uk citizens and i urge the commission and the council to recognise that for many their european citizenship is also an essential part of their identity.
excuse me colleagues allow me to answer.
i am trying to keep order in this debate which is a very important debate for all our citizens. if you were looking for a blue card during a blue card procedure then i will have to ask the services what we can do in that regard.
but i don't ignore anybody.
if i don't see them myself i hope my services do and i hope the house accepts that.
you can speak when the microphone is on sir not when it is not so bear with me for a moment.
the auguries are not encouraging. the brexit vote has brought to the surface the very deep divisions in the uk.
the first such division is deeply ideological that between the intransigent brexiteers and the committed remainers.
then there are the cracks in what holds the country together.
london and the south east well that's a powerhouse but the further north one goes the weaker things are economically in terms of status aspirations and power. that's the way that peripheries work.
without a redistribution of power of goods and status status above all the crisis of the united kingdom will persist. and that signifies that the united kingdom will be an uneasy partner for the european union.
yet there is no spirit of conciliation and compromise and nowhere is this more evident than in the draft legal text on northern ireland and the republic of ireland which this resolution supports.
this is aggressive interference in the internal affairs of the united kingdom.
it would be disastrous for northern ireland economically.
it violates the principle of consent a core principle of the belfast agreement and it goes well beyond the belfast agreement in its north south proposals.
in fact it is a text that no british prime minister could agree to.
it has achieved the seemingly impossible of uniting the british parliament against it.
these proposals are a very far step away from it.
i can see you.
laughter i think we need to reflect on this moment. it is an internal uk issue so i will allow you a point of order if it is a point of order but i will be strict if it is not.
you have been warned.
madam president fear dread alarm panic terror pain. that is all that you hear from those on that side of the house will occur to britain once we leave the european union not the positive message that we have campaigned for one where britain will be independent looking outwardly to the rest of the world and still being friends with the european union.
this paper that you present today is one more attempt at fear but this fear is to try to shackle britain and undermine us.
the reality is that it is the european union's fear of britain fear of britain succeeding fear of britain leaving this club and doing well.
but i will tell you that britain has never feared looking forward to the future. we weren't in fear when we came to your aid from the times of nazism to communism.
we weren't fearful when we had to tackle our own economic problems and we will not live in fear living outside of the european union.
we will embrace it and look forward to a bright future.
the uk government is encouraged and actually urged to make and articulate choices on the future trade relations.
for us a level playing field is essential. we should not make concessions when it comes to high standards or compromises on the unity of our single market but it is time for a reality check in london special trade privileges are only negotiable when the united kingdom also accepts overarching rules and standards.
yet the uk's many red lines only lead to one thing there will be hurdles and friction when it comes to trade and that negatively impacts citizens small and medium sized enterprises and of course many other companies.
a solid future relation does not magically emerge on the basis of speeches.
i therefore urge prime minister may to come up with a realistic proposal about the trade relations she does want for her country after brexit in relation to the european union.
you consider the offer of friendship and cooperation bad words that's what the british conservatives and the british people are offering.
the british conservatives sit here as part of a very large and powerful ecr group.
mr president i dare say there are a few in this house that put a few bob on the horses and we should acknowledge that the cheltenham festival is today. there might be a few people there discussing brexit because actually brexit will damage the horseracing industry because it relies on eu rules and i dare say mr farage might be interested in that.
this is a huge concern for punters for breeders for trainers and we need to find a solution.
can i also address prime minister theresa may directly?
when she spoke in her speech about a precious union of the united kingdom i get that.
i fully understand it.
but can i say that the european union is also precious?
not in the way that sometimes precious is perceived;
it's important it's vital and therefore that's why we defend it.
can i say that one of the big hurdles we face continuing the racing metaphor is that of the border with northern ireland?
jim nicholson has left the chamber but he's a wise man and he in my view is a bridge between the extremes of sinn fein and the dup.
the church times wrote and i quote when a government sees an impending threat to the people in its care it fails in its duty if does nothing to remove that threat'.
ms may and her conservative government are failing in their duty of care to the country.
as the so called party of business' it would appear they have no business plan. you can't run a corner shop without a business plan let alone a country.
the single market has massive benefits but it also has rules.
this resolution is clear about those rules and it is reasonable to defend them.
but whatever the deal might be we as the liberal democrats demand the people have a say on it.
we here will have a vote.
the whole idea of democracy is that things are not decided on before.
it is decided when you decide based upon what you decide on and based upon what you think about that decision.
i have one very simple question which is on the basis of what you said and which attracted a great deal of support will the european parliament in your opinion i am asking you to make a prediction vote in favour of any agreement that is reached between the european commission the european council and the british government?
what i will say to you is that britain will not return to the european union.
what you will find is that more countries will want to leave the european union.
because when our economy is growing faster than yours when our regulations are not imposing costs on the small businesses that you have and when you finally realise that it is politicians and democracy and the people that make the decisions over their lives not unelected commissioners then you will see that more of europe will want to leave and join brexit as well.
you're now going to hear from a third a fervent brexiteer and one who is very very pleased at the position the united kingdom is taking and the fact that it is prepared to say no' to the european union that we do not wish to continue being a vassal state.
the united kingdom does not wish to be a vassal state.
we really take exception to being told that we should continue having the jurisdiction of the european court of justice and that we should continue to be under the onerous single market and customs union regulations.
i noticed this especially in the area of tax the main area of my work here in parliament and where our resolution makes clear that the uk will not achieve a trade deal with the eu unless we match european standards in the fight against tax avoidance and money laundering.
so i am glad that my work here on tax won't be wasted but i am sad that i must use my role as an mep to protect these high standards in the uk after brexit.
the situation is similar with citizens' rights where my own government did little to defend our interests as though the one million british people who work in the eu or have european partners or children just don't matter to them.
brexit is a clear example of ideology triumphing over reason and as such it is the epitome of bad government.
you are in serious danger of overplaying your hand. we want and need solutions that avoid a hard border and respect the constitutional integrity of the united kingdom and the belfast agreement.
madam president the strength of this resolution on ireland is to be welcomed. every month since the brexit referendum there has been growing support for the sinn fin proposal that the north of ireland acquire special status to prevent a hardening of the border to protect the good friday agreement and to defend citizens' rights.
membership of the single market and the customs union for all of ireland is essential.
the british government has not presented a single realistic proposal on the irish border.
their position dictated by the dup is political lunacy that would harm unionist workers students businesses and farmers as much as their republican counterparts.
the back stop while not perfect provides some much needed certainty.
the british government actually signed up for this in december and for once it is time for them to honour their word.
finally the irish people have confirmed time and time again that they want to be part of the eu but like citizens across europe they want a social progressive and democratic eu.
apparently i had given the floor to another speaker before the services saw your blue card so let there be no doubt about my commitment to fairness in the chair and i hope you accept that. secondly mr flanagan there is a blue card request from mr rbig.
the irish and the british will work it out together as they did before and you very well know that anything the eu touches becomes a filthy mess.
we all need to know and especially businesses under which terms we will be able to cooperate in the future.
to keep the uk within the internal market to preserve most of the benefits that we have created with the uk together.
the fact that the uk refuses that is a fatal mistake. any other option is simply worse and will build new barriers for eu companies but also for british companies and for some businesses especially smes this new situation will be very hard to cope with.
it would not allow for any transitional period and it would just worsen our mutual relations.
it would degrade the eu uk partnership to a level inferior to what we currently have with turkey or even with china and i do not think either side wishes that.
mr president i rise to ask colleagues to consider the referral of this motion for a resolution back to committee.
i do not do so lightly because i share the concerns of all colleagues who have spoken in this debate and as expressed in this resolution.
but i would like to say to be fair to the commissioner that it is not our intent to cause her any problems at a critical stage in the negotiations she is having at the moment with the arctic council.
to a certain extent we are repeating what we said then but we are also saying some things that are rather stronger and as mrs doyle said they come at a critical moment when most of us in this house would want to see the eu take up a seat on the arctic council and we would not wish to compromise that.
it would be much better to refer this back to committee and have a full and considered report in the new mandate.
the commission is concerned about the information it has received concerning the conditions in which internally displaced people are living in the so called welfare centres' once they have escaped from the territory controlled by the tamil tigers into government controlled areas.
both commissioners ferrero waldner and michel have already communicated publicly their preoccupation about the consequences of the hostilities on the civilian population and have called on both parties the ltte and the sri lankan authorities to protect the civil population
un agencies the red cross and other humanitarian organisations should have full access to these centres in line with international humanitarian law.
it is very important that the government follows up on the most prominent high profile cases.
the commission continues to be alarmed about the human rights situation in sri lanka against a background of reports of extrajudicial killings abductions and serious intimidation of the media.
it is also important that international standards be respected in these temporary camps.
as required under international humanitarian law and to allow the safe and voluntary movement of people away from the combat zone.
at the difficult situation of thousands of internally displaced persons trapped by fighting in northern sri lanka.
an inclusive dialogue is required to agree on a political settlement so that lasting peace and reconciliation can be achieved by addressing the concerns which led to the insurgency in the first place and to provide adequate space for all communities.
in her recent meeting with the sri lankan foreign minister commissioner ferrero waldner called upon the government of sri lanka to take decisive action to tackle human rights abuses including action against the perpetrators and to guarantee press freedom.
sadly anyone who does not support the sri lankan government is labelled an apologist for terrorism and a supporter of the ltte.
paragraph four of the resolution asks the government the very same sri lankan government to investigate their own serious human rights violations. colleagues some of you may want to associate yourselves and your groups with those kinds of sentiments but we do not.
on this side of the house we attach the same importance to sri lanka and believe it deserved equal and proper discussion but i regret that not one other group supported us in this stand.
that is why it is not in the resolution before you.
sadly this resolution does not call for an immediate end to the fighting so we will not endorse that approach by taking part in today's vote.
we do condemn their attacks and we do want them the tamil tigers to sit round the negotiating table but this war must be stopped immediately.
vote for this text and you are condoning attacks on hospitals and ignoring allegations of war crimes.
the government must end its military campaign that has brought as others have said humanitarian disaster to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in the north of the island.
we wanted to condemn unreservedly the bombing of hospitals and aid workers but mr van orden negotiating for the ppe refused to condemn it.
a short debate this afternoon with a handful of people on a thursday is an insult to the thousands of people under attack and dying in the north of sri lanka.
to him and presumably to dr tannock as well everything the government of sri lanka says is a fact and just about every aid organisation on the ground from the red cross to the un can be dismissed.
however our motion was critical of the ltte and their tactics.
the pse also wanted to condemn the murders of journalists and other media workers by government agents.
if they really cared about the tamil people they would not use tamil people as a human shield to protect themselves.
we need to help that country to remain what it has always been one of the oldest democracies in the world.
it has had sixteen general elections five presidential elections and has conducted itself as a member of the family of nations of democracy.
i want to add support to what previous speakers have said about an immediate cease fire.
during this fighting thousands of innocent people were killed and injured and much destruction to property infrastructure and the environment has been caused.
this sorry state of affairs has been exacerbated in recent months mainly due to the government's large scale military offensive against the tamil tigers.
according to amnesty international there have been violations of international conventions and human rights by both government and tamil tiger forces. admittedly it is very difficult in such circumstances to be absolutely sure as to who is to be blamed for some of the tragic events in sri lanka but we must call on both sides to exercise restraint and to pay utmost attention and respect to innocent civilians and to observe the conventions of war.
since the sri lankan government has the upper hand in the situation and is the internationally recognised authority in the country our call must by necessity and logic go mostly to them.
at the same time we must call on the tamil tiger leaders to abide by the calls of the international community take advantage of the government's offer of amnesty renounce violence and seek to achieve their aims through political dialogue.
we must also once again advise emphatically that fighting solves no problems and that lasting peace and stability can only be achieved at the negotiating table which will inevitably happen sooner or later.
in these negotiations compromises will have to be made by both sides and a solution found which will be for the benefit of the citizens of this beautiful country.
of democratic power in the
what we represent is not anti europeanism.
are we going to get a dignified calm figure who behaves like the speaker of all great parliaments around the world somebody who puts himself above politics and the nitty gritty of the day to day arguments and is an ambassador indeed a statesman?
you know the one i mean snarling angry unable to control his temper intolerant of anybody with an alternative point of view somebody who is contemptuous when in free referendums people have the temerity to vote no' somebody who is anti british to his fingertips and does not like free markets?
i was wondering which one we would get.
i have to say that only a third world country only a banana republic would want to have an overtly political president of a parliament but that is what we have got.
or are we going to get the martin schulz we have got to know since two thousand and four as leader of the socialist group?
we do not want a europe that seeks to be a global superpower.
that is not what it is about.
mr schulz you told der spiegel magazine just last week that apparently people are tired of decisions being made behind closed doors.
i did not agree with many of the statements that you made this morning but that is a debate we will have on many other occasions i am sure.
i hope that you will treat all groups equally and all members equally and with great respect for the elected office that they hold whatever the section of this house that they come from. your first major engagement will be representing this house at the european council meeting in a couple of weeks' time.
that is the nature of democracy we all respect each others' points of view even when we differ.
i am sure that all the heads of government and presidents are greatly looking forward to hearing what you have to say after all they have not heard from many socialists round the council table recently so i am sure they will be pleased to have your reflection on these issues.
as your future ally in this fight to defend the community method.
them. they are a part of my
i think everybody who knows me knows that i remain a social democrat but i am not the president of social democracy in europe i am the president of the european parliament.
i know that some colleagues worry about internet voting but it can be made safe.
however it was also soon complemented with a certain amount of lack of flexibility when the debate came to the point of accepting or not some of the many suggestions and proposals brought up by other groups.
must exercise their powers according to the highest standards of representativeness and accountability.
there is a counter argument that the institution of the threshold restricts the political marketplace by creating too high a barrier to entry.
from every standpoint this is the sensible rational solution.
every parliament in the world does so and it adds to transparency and predictability if the systems by which citizens choose their representatives in the eu are broadly similar similar if not identical given that there are twenty eight different political traditions involved. the sensitive issue here is that of a threshold.