kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
or perhaps we could talk about the eu's vindictive behaviour in trade talks where the world's poor are banned from exporting their most successful produce to european markets stopping them from trading their way out of poverty and debt.
or perhaps we could talk about the eu fishing boats plundering the fish stocks off the horn of africa.
perhaps we could talk about the eu pesticides directive which prevents african countries using effective anti malaria sprays.
this has destroyed the livelihoods of peaceful fishermen who resorted to piracy against container ships in order to stay alive.
as a result ninety of the world's malaria deaths occur in africa the majority of them being children under the age of three.
as you can see the eu is an actor in international development but a spiteful and an inadequate one.
as we approach the millennium development goal deadlines perhaps we should examine what the eu has done for or should i say to the world's poor.
india has invested money in high yield crops in west africa. this is infinitely more useful than the feel good dance troupes the eu funded in the same region.
the eu should stop impoverishing the world's poor and let them have a chance to live.
i think there is a real danger that we are entering into a period of aid fatigue.
no one would object to disaster or emergency aid but i am afraid that much development aid is objectionable.
i believe that countries should act quickly when we have disasters or crises such as the ebola virus where nations acted shamefully slowly and without comprehending the reality of the situation but i do not want to see the wrong kind of aid aid which engenders dependence;
aid to countries with nuclear or space programmes;
universality means that the new framework will apply to all countries of the world while taking into account national contexts capacities and levels of development.
new conflicts and demands for better governance are reshaping parts of the world.
in an integrated and balanced manner;
areas. i believe this report is a helpful contribution to a stronger eu position and i hope it will also help engage our citizens mobilise support for sustainable development and demonstrate the benefits of working together in shaping our common future.
the millennium development goals have been enormously helpful in guiding our development efforts since two thousand but we need a new agenda to meet the new challenges before us today an agenda that includes all three dimensions of sustainable development social economic and environmental
our planet's natural resources are in decline and the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss are becoming close to irreversible.
an agenda that addresses inequalities and takes a human rights based approach. the universality principle is a profoundly important feature of this new framework.
i can assure you that the commission fully agrees on the need to promote an ambitious trade agenda as a vector of reform for our eastern partners and shares the willingness to drive such an agenda forward. we all know that this will not be an easy
the first part of this year has also seen important progress of our bilateral relations with moldova georgia and armenia; three partners with whom dcfta negotiations have been launched.
it is now key that throughout the negotiations the pace of reform started during the preparation phase is maintained. indeed the negotiations of a dcfta are still only the beginning of a long process of reform.
it is now up to ukraine to create the overall political conditions which will allow its signature and ratification.
the commission considers that such clearer rules could make origin determination more predictable and ensure better application of the trade measures such as anti dumping and other trade defence instruments and safeguard mechanisms.
pending agreement in the wto it would not be in the interest of the eu to accept a priori whatever origin determination of imported goods is made by the authorities of the exporting countries.
currently eu implementing provisions on the principle of last substantial transformation exist only for a limited number of products.
uniform implementation is a basic principle and an eu obligation which i am sure the european parliament wants the commission and the member states to adhere to.
this is in line with wto commitments.
we need to make sure that all member states apply one set of rules consistently.
on the import side we have not yet made any proposal for implementing provisions pending the adoption of the union customs code.
this will continue to apply under the union customs code.
some discussions have taken place in the customs code committee origin section to explore the possibility of establishing such provisions product by product while taking account of the needs of smes.
finally i would like to convey again commissioner emeta's apologies for not being able to join us this evening. on the other hand i believe it is a very fortunate moment to have this discussion as we are actively preparing mc nine the ministerial conference of
it should not be for the exporting country to determine the non preferential origin of products. indeed pending completion of the harmonisation work programme in the wto importing countries are entitled to define the country of origin of goods imported into their territory under strict conditions.
doing so would undermine the eu's capacity to negotiate in the wto.
this is because such third countries do not apply the same non preferential rules as the eu and there is no procedure for cooperation or verification. it makes no sense for the eu to accept this as it would undermine our capacity to negotiate in the wto.
the change in the union customs code makes this absolutely clear.
for imports to the eu we are still reflecting on the appropriate implementing provisions and it is in the interest of european producers to be sure that any measures adopted for their defence are applied correctly throughout the european union.
let me just make one last remark.
the problem putin's government has with memorial is not what it does but what it stands for.
that is something we need to reflect upon.
there is no point in reciting all the facts; we all know those of us who sit here and who have been observing developments in russia that the actions by the ministry of justice and putin's governments against memorial are basically a petty malicious and vindictive response to the activities of memorial.
the steps taken by the justice ministry in russia take place in the context of a shrinking space for civil society with the russian authorities attempting to weaken or suppress independent civil society organisations instead of empowering them.
so the union will continue to be fair in reminding the russian government of its obligation to respect international human rights obligations and standards.
i would like to say what our high representative has done what the commission has done.
we have publicly expressed at the latest osce permanent council meeting last thursday and also at the council of europe yesterday our firm conviction as a commission that this decision is in contradiction with the very same international obligations which russia has adhered to.
what has been done to memorial is not only damaging to memorial itself in russia but to the entire civil society in russia.
let me assure this house that whether or not we can resume our overdue human rights consultations with russia the commission will keep on raising human rights issues with our russian partners and keep a close eye on many individual cases of concern to us all. furthermore the commission will continue to extend its support to independent civil society in russia which is crucial at this difficult moment.
for the last two years as this house knows the so called law on foreign agents has led many organisations such as adc memorial and golos to close down completely in order to avoid further criminal prosecution of their leaders and some activists have also fled russia.
the government of the russian federation should at the very least adhere to agreements it has itself made in the context of the council of europe the osce the european court of human rights and of course its own constitution.
its founder andrei sakharov inspired the name of our human rights award which was given to memorial in.
laws systematically undermine freedoms and give authorities greater unchecked powers.
two thousand and nine we urge the scheduled law suit against them of thirteen november to be recalled and to revoke all conspiracy theory driven foreign agent laws against ngos.
the closing of memorial is more than symbolic.
we see a clear difference between ill guided kremlin policies and the population of russia and we support their aspiration for a just democratic and free russia.
civil society journalists and opposition figures are all repressed and intimidated and the russian people live in an unfree free society although propaganda suggests otherwise.
those books were declared dangerous to the official policy line.
sixty years ago many in europe were praising stalin as a great leader.
time will show and i am sure that time will come very quickly.
we all understand their essential role in today's society and their universal value no matter what the region political system or culture.
because memorial has collected information about millions of victims of soviet totalitarian terror.
according to orwell he who controls the past can control the future and he who controls the present like memorial will control the past.
madam president the russian justice ministry's request to have the human and civil rights organisation memorial closed down reflects just about all that is wrong with president putin's russia.
memorial works to promote democracy the rule of law human rights and civil society activism all principles that are being eroded currently in russia.
on a more symbolic level it works to inform the public of russia's true history exposing the terrible atrocities committed during the stalinist soviet era a history that the political establishment more usually today glosses over and vaunts as a guiding light for the future of russia.
memorial is just one organisation in russia but iconically it represents the russia that should be and its closure is extremely worrying to us in this house.
russia has with china and saudi arabia recently drafted proposals to the itu to give control of the internet to national governments and away from icann as part of a crackdown on net freedom. fortunately the usa a lover of freedom is blocking this and rightly so as the net for all its faults remains a forum for free expression by the victims of authoritarian regimes globally.
of note however is that some of the largest arms exporters and importers such as russia china india and pakistan have not signed or ratified it.
two thousand and eight this framework is unique.
in support of these objectives the council and the european external action service provide an information sharing platform which is the dedicated council working party on arms exports and an it platform enabling the exchange of information relevant for risk assessment including details on license denials. like the eu guidelines these information sharing components have been recently overhauled and updated as a result of the review of the eu common position achieved in.
the latest phase covering the years two thousand and sixteen two thousand and seventeen will come to a close in december but steps are already being taken to continue the work with a new council decision for the years two thousand.
against this background of national responsibility exercised with common risk assessment criteria the overarching objectives of the eu common position are to promote responsible arms export policies and the convergence of national arms export policies.
briefly widening the picture outside the eu in our close neighbourhood a number of third countries have aligned with the criteria of the eu common position.
the risk assessment criteria laid down by the eu common position are comprehensive and far reaching notably in terms of respect for human rights and international humanitarian law the risk of diversion and the impact on internal and regional stability.
it is based on the national responsibility of eu member states on arms export licensing decisions together with well developed information sharing between the export control authorities of member states.
and eighteen and two thousand and nineteen secondly and moving to an even larger picture i would like to refer to the arms trade treaty.
their daily application by national licensing offices is supported by the socalled user's guide that was revised in two thousand and fifteen notably in order to align it with the arms trade treaty.
to assist them in their daily operational implementation the eu has had in place since two thousand and nine an outreach programme funding technical cooperation.
the att entered into force in december two thousand and fourteen and so far one hundred and thirty states have signed it and ninety two countries are state parties including all twenty eight eu member states.
two thousand and fifteen this has contributed and continues to further contribute to the convergence of arms export policies as they are being put into practice.
the arms trade is becoming more and more globalised. it is our duty to lead by example when it comes to arms exports from the eu.
this is a testimony to parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports which is a sound follow up to transparency applied at eu level on arms export issues. interaction channels on arms export issues with parliament and civil society including ngos the academic world and the industry have developed considerably over the years. this is an invaluable achievement and it illustrates that transparency and dialogue can fruitfully take place without prejudice to the respective responsibilities of national and eu stakeholders.
the eu framework governing arms exports mainly revolves around the eu common position on arms exports adopted in.
it features one five hundred or more exhibitors from all around the world displaying arms ranging from sniper rifles to tanks to combat aircraft to warships.
this fair is organised by clarion events and the british government department's defence and security organisation whose support is crucial to its success.
they are joined by trade visitors and military delegations including those from human rights abusing regimes and countries involved in conflict.
but it takes place in secret behind heavily protected security fences and police lines designed to allow arms dealers to trade their wares unhindered by transparency or public protest and it is subsidised by the uk taxpayer.
madam president as we are speaking the defence and security equipment international fair is happening right now in london's docklands where it happens every two years.
let me close on this note of truly shared interests and by signalling once again my appreciation of parliament's role in keeping this important issue on the agenda.
as such convergence remains by definition always a work in progress.
the eu common position specifies very clearly that licensing decisions remain at the national discretion of eu member states.
one of the main achievements of the eu common position relates to increased transparency across the eu on arms export issues.
our discussion today demonstrates that detailed information is regularly made available at eu level and open for parliamentary and public scrutiny.
against this background of national responsibility the eu common position supports greater convergence through a number of common elements and information sharing.
the improvements decided as a result of the review of the eu common position have supported further convergence.
i will not go into these issues here but i want to support what michael gahler said earlier in this debate namely that of all arms exporters the eu has the most robust system in place for oversight and reporting
we have export control regimes primarily to ensure that as far as possible weapons and key components do not get into the wrong hands and by that i mean our potential enemies rogue states and terrorists.
i very much hope the parliament will reject any suggestion of sanctions against a member state not complying with a common position and similarly we don't see the necessity in these times of budgetary pressure for the establishment of eu funds to be used for capacity building among licensing and enforcement officials in member states.
we have to ask why there is a necessity for increased eu activity in this area when it is the wider international community that needs to be taking action.
in fact very little mention is made of the countries that have been the worst abusers in the international arms trade system feeding violent insurgency and terrorism in all continents of the world.
i am pleased that following the acceptance of our amendment there is at least mention of the un's international arms trade treaty but this is under played and thank you by the way mr maasikas for your emphasis on this.
we should not underestimate their importance.
most of these concern the constant effort to enhance the role of the eu over its member states.
like our armed forces the arms industries of european countries are well regulated and responsibly controlled.
we don't want to impose more regulation on our own national industries merely to advance the cause of eu political integration and i should mention that my own country the united kingdom already has a robust and comprehensive arms export control system irrespective by the way of eu activity.
two thousand and twelve two thousand and sixteen last but not least in order to strengthen compliance with reporting obligations i support the development of a tough sanctioning mechanism for member states which fail to comply with the common position.
it is not good enough.
of course i condemn totally the killing of children and other civilians in situations of armed conflict.
by the way there was an action taken by the campaign against the arms trade and of course this is where it all comes from against the united kingdom government.
i have taken due note of your views on this particular case and i share your feelings towards the victims and their families. however the commission considers that there is no scope for its involvement in this case.
a decision on extradition between european union member states or between european union member states and third states are entirely the preserve of the judiciary.
the european union has not concluded any extradition agreement with brazil and even if this had been the case it would have no right to intervene in individual extradition cases.
we have just come to the end of our public consultation on the enp review based on the joint communication we published in march.
we must do all we can to make sure that all our foreign policy and security tools are brought together to help resolve conflict and develop the resilience of our partners. where we can we must reach out for partners beyond the neighbourhood who share the eu's interest in
circular migration that offers opportunity without draining talent permanently away from home alongside the continuing efforts to tackle the challenges of irregular migration.
we will continue to support democracy the rule of law human rights and efficient and accountable public institutions as essential ingredients for the neighbourhood we want
i believe that they play an essential role both in ensuring accountability and the fair development of their societies and in providing vital advice to the european
we will work harder to make sure that our support is coordinated so that each country can draw maximum benefit from the help on offer from the eu and its member
union. where we have successful cooperation in place we should pursue it but we will aim to be more responsive and more flexible in how we can support those wrestling with painful reforms.
young; promoting business links in targeted sectors;
we need to rethink our approach and put our partnership on a new footing. your own reflections have underlined the need for greater differentiation in the way we work with partners. this is a principle that has found a positive echo among our partners and with member states.
need. some of these partners are seeking a close integration with us and some do not currently have this aspiration. this is the reality to which we must adapt our policy. we need to identify how we can show our relevance to this diverse range of partners while at the same time remaining true to our fundamentals.
it was really a very interesting cooperation.
two thousand and four i can agree with that but we learned our lessons and that is why this report is very timely.
i think this debate also showed that we are all interested in having an efficient pragmatic european neighbourhood policy which would serve all the eu countries' interests and also the interests of our neighbours. so let us hope that
it contains many issues and principles which could be used in order not to repeat the mistakes which we committed and to be more prepared for the fast developing situation in the neighbourhood countries.
everybody agrees that the european neighbourhood policy is a very important part of eu external policy.
it is true to say that in the past europe has too often made the assumption that there would be steady if sometimes slow trends towards modernisation reform and democratic development in our neighbourhood.
but what we have seen whether in ukraine or in the stalled arab uprisings are sudden shocks and reverses which require europe's neighbourhood policy to have a much greater emphasis on and capacity for fastmoving political intervention and diplomacy.
i support some of the principles emerging from the review.
frankly we also need a sea change to massively increase this element of the policy compared to the past.
more for more' is a good policy which should be maintained but let us recognise that the incentives which we offered were insufficient. and as we have just heard the revised policy must also address the challenge of less for less'.
we need to be self aware when we say at the same time that we want more partnership and local ownership but also that we want a better more focused defence of european interests and values.
but i do have some fears that the journey from vilnius to riga means that this review is actually cover for reducing the ambition behind our european neighbourhood policy and that so called enlargement fatigue means there is a retrenchment of membership prospects for the countries in our neighbourhood. both of these dangers must be resisted.
so often i hear colleagues in this chamber advocate a strong european common foreign and security policy with europe as a global player.
the truth is that there can never be true respect for europe's global role if we cannot play a more dynamic and effective role in dealing with the problems of our very own neighbourhood.
that is an argument for a more ambitious neighbourhood policy. commissioner you will have our support if this is the choice you make.
there are people in that country and across the neighbourhood who look to us in europe.
so far we have decoupled the security issue from everything else but security even if outside the remit of the enp has an impact on the building of a well functioning state and associated reforms.
the eu needs an approach which mobilises all available instruments and resources in a coherent way.
on the issue of ambitions and membership perspectives countries to the east have made radically different choices on their relations with the eu. we have to acknowledge this important change and this can only mean one thing we need to do more for those which have real and tangible european ambitions and have decided on the european path.
this report also establishes a strong position on the false dilemma between values and interests.
democracy the rule of law and human rights are in the interest of neighbouring societies as much as our own in terms of stability security and prosperity.
the social labour and gender dimensions of the enp have a crucial role to play in this regard.