kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
innovation driven prosperity the environment accessibility in terms of transport and energy connections and security and safety are the four major areas for joint work by all partners who are involved in preparation of the strategy all three european institutions parliament the commission the council but also national governments regional and local authorities business and academic communities and non governmental organisations. the process of the preparation of the strategy has led to a genuine partnership between all of them.
the own initiative report will be prepared in the months to come.
we will hold the debate on six october with the commission and the council;
first the shape.
i would like to say that the strategy has been designed in line with the objectives and intentions of member states. the commission did not interfere in the selection of priorities.
however it is to be agreed in the future work related to the implementation of the strategy.
this means that our problems will create problems there so this is not a national issue. recently latvia received medium term financial assistance for balance of payments provided for by the commission. unfortunately there are no social conditions for such assistance.
we all know the problems to do with the environment of the baltic sea and the specific economic difficulties of the area.
one of the mechanisms you did not mention was the possibility of a regular report back to this parliament so that we may have a debate like today to watch how things are progressing.
for me i will have the pleasure as a vice president of this house of participating in the conference that you are organising on friday.
i think there are concerns still remaining about funding to make sure that this house sees the results of this strategy that it deserves.
a macro regional economic strategy could be the way forward in other ways in other places in europe.
in many member states unfortunately there is no statistical information.
concerning the role of women in family businesses we promote and support women entrepreneurship in europe with concrete actions providing encouragement advice and support to women entrepreneurs.
the results will be known in about two years' time.
in your report you also referred to the need to offer young family members entrepreneurship education and training.
to make governments more sensitive to the issue of family businesses we took action to make more visible the economic importance of the sector.
there are also a number of important problems that are family business specific and need special attention like the smooth transfer of business to the next generation and its fiscal consequences.
the most effective way to help family businesses is to address their problems in existing smes or industry related policies such as the creation of a supportive business environment or participation in the various european union funding programmes.
a number of points mentioned in the report have to a large extent already been addressed by the commission for example the contact points the collection of statistical data and the need for vocational training for younger family members.
family businesses need a level playing field when the implementation of national or eu policies has an impact on them.
as you know taxation is a sole competence of member states so we have pointed out the issue of the family business to them asking them for more growthfriendly tax policies at national level.
i would like to mention that there are various programmes like erasmus for young entrepreneurs from which all younger members of the family business can benefit if they envision entrepreneurship as an attractive and realistic career option.
for this reason we are financing a number of national statistical offices to collect data on family businesses in order to get a clearer picture on them.
such measures include the european network of female entrepreneurship ambassadors the european network of mentors for women entrepreneurs and as from two thousand and sixteen onwards the online e platform for women entrepreneurs.
in paragraph one we set out ways in which we could support and strengthen civil society within hong kong a crucial set of groups that are doing increasingly difficult work;
the eu external competences are still new and at best we can use the footprint and historical connections of our member states to use that insight to inform a values based foreign policy in the wider world.
i am very pleased that we have reached such a high degree of consensus across the house only two amendments of substance from the gue group in favour of greater partnership on tax work tax avoidance money laundering and financial transparency. for my part i strongly support the amendments i urge colleagues to support them too.
on that point on a slightly personal note it's a great tragedy for me that as the eu begins to speak with one voice in the wider world my own member state the united kingdom has decided to retreat into isolationism with brexit if not my country scotland.
hong kong is the fourteenth biggest trading partner of the european union it is an important partner to us an important part of the eu china dialogue.
on this report it is right that we take stock of the situation in hong kong.
there remains a concern that the one country two systems' is being undermined and in paragraphs one and one we voice that concern not criticism but concern.
i think there is a key area where we could assist in the fight against organised crime and money laundering.
we are twenty years after the handover from the british to the chinese and twenty years into a fifty year commitment to a one country two systems' approach.
and it's important to be frank hong kong is a great place but all is not perfect.
we can use that insight to inform ourselves but not be a prisoner of the baggage of history.
i assure you there are plenty of constructive partners in scotland and we'll be in touch.
has come under increasing pressure.
for its own growth and prosperity.
i think we have struck a balanced text across the house.
paragraph thirty four we call for the commission to provide for an environmental impact assessment of energy infrastructure projects but we have failed to mention that the commission has not fulfilled its duty to provide for an objective impartial environmental
i along with other members have seen it provide consolation support and a sympathetic ear to people who have been met by a wall of frustration and bureaucracy in their own countries. however one or two things need to be done to improve it first we need to communicate the message more to the citizens;
second we need to speed up the process;
now we have the nemesis of the overdue market correction. but the catharsis has been artificially stayed. rather than allowing a natural market correction which is to say greece minting its own currency and pricing itself back into the european markets we are instead pursuing this policy of pretending that better statistics or more regional aid or more shifting around of money through sales taxes or european debt agencies will somehow postpone the inevitable.
thus we see the true purpose of the european union namely the employment of its own employees.
several initiatives have already been developed by the commission following the discovery of the horsemeat fraud last year.
the first proposed directive would ban the use of the cloning technique in the european union for farmed animals and would ban imports into the european union of cloned animals.
in particular a food fraud network comprising the twenty eight member states and the commission has been established to ensure that action to fight potential food fraud is effectively coordinated across the european union.
these initiatives aim to increase awareness of food fraud and improve the capabilities of member states to better prevent detect and deter fraudulent activities along the food chain.
a dedicated team has been created within the commissions directorate general for health and consumers to coordinate actions within the network and to discuss with other agencies for example with europol how best to coordinate strategies in the fight against food fraud.
the commission fully shares the view that combating food fraud is a priority if we want to maintain a high level of food safety consumer confidence in food on the european union market and the competitiveness of the european food industry.
the areas of work that have been identified are very much in line with the recommendations of the report before us today.
mr president on a previous occasion when this house voted to reject a proposal from the commission in that case a directive concerning oil reserves it was referred back to the relevant committee because the commission did not emphatically confirm that it was going to withdraw the proposal.
the commissioner has chosen his words very carefully.
it should go back to the committee until we know whether the commission will withdraw its proposal or not.
how much longer are we going to put up with the ridiculous state of affairs where this house cannot get its voting procedures in order?
i ask you to invite the president and the bureau to make it quite clear to commissioners ministers and anyone else that they should run their timetable round our procedures not the other way round and that we vote at the proper times as advertised.
of course we should proceed.
just to quote rule fifty six if the commission does not withdraw its proposal parliament shall refer the matter back to the committee responsible without voting on the draft legislative resolution unless parliament on a proposal of the chair
or rapporteur of the committee responsible or of a political group or at least forty members proceeds to vote on the draft legislative resolution'.
mr president i just want to move the words of origin' in this paragraph so it reads the country or place of provenance'.
the eu has increased its actions to prevent and fight against different forms of hate crime and hate speech.
countering all expressions of discrimination violence and intolerance is a priority for all of us.
the commission is now assessing whether improved eu wide procedures are needed for the removal of illegal content from online platforms.
we have a responsibility to make sure that we have effective tools to address situations where the right to free expression is deliberately abused to promote violent extremism or discrimination against certain groups in society.
the proliferation of hate speech online is shrinking the space for democratic discussions.
we need some kind of clarification from the eu on the self regulatory measures in the sector.
to achieve this we need to encourage quality journalism online and to extend ethical journalistic standards to all media actors.
this is why i also call on the commission to analyse in depth the current situation and legal framework with regard to fake news and to explore the possibility of legislative intervention to limit the dissemination and spreading of fake content.
we need more investigative journalists professional and courageous media outlets and more transparency in media ownership.
the code of conduct published by the commission is a step in the right direction.
we have to better support factchecking websites.
the majority of people mostly young have difficulty in identifying fake news.
we might have a new word for this but it is plain old fashioned populist propaganda lies and half truths seeking to muddy the waters and twist reality for political gain.
the internet social media and twenty four hour news cycles have made their job all too easy.
truthiness' post fact' and the use of metropolitan liberal elites' as a pejorative are all part of a wider movement against expert opinion and reasoned analysis towards a world of half truths where views and opinions are reported as facts.
mr president we talk a lot at the moment of fake news whether we think of trump's tweets putin's control of the russian media or the false promises spread by some brexiteers during the uk's eu referendum campaign.
you can call us all the names you like but it will not change the result.
what they hate is you lot imposing unfettered immigration that has transformed communities without the people's say. they do not like seeing their streets changed without their approval.
if you genuinely want to build a better europe how about this stop what you are doing and think about why people voted the way they did.
we love our countries we love our communities we love living in nations where the people are the masters and through democratic decisions the people have the final say.
they do not like living in places that no longer resemble those they grew up in and they know the eu is to blame.
if we try to solve one problem with blunt and ineffective technological tools we will end up creating more problems.
instead we need to address the terrible experiences that many women have when they actually try to report sexist hate speech to the police.
no technology is qualified to make the difficult decisions needed to define hate speech.
then why do certain member states think we can fix this problem?
we are simply getting facebook and twitter to install a content filter.
it is a widespread phenomenon that did not start with the internet.
by relying solely on technology we are not helping the victims and we are silencing free speech if we try to turn private companies into enforcers of laws that often do not even exist in the first place.
we need to invest in training for law enforcement in easier reporting of crimes and in supporting grassroots initiatives countering hate speech.
we can see that this information stems from a weak institutional and democratic environment and simultaneously feeds into preserving the same defined milieu.
we experience here campaigns and increased activities during elections with the aim to influence the result.
mr president i feel offended on behalf of the citizens of this union to see one of our colleagues behaving in a completely inappropriate way in this chamber at this moment.
i would like to say that this is not a mud wrestling arena.
this is the european parliament and things like this should not be tolerated by you or me and i kindly ask you to turn to our colleague and ask her kindly to behave in this plenary on behalf of all of us.
media literacy enable citizens to use and create media content effectively and safely.
media literate people are able to exercise more informed choices understand the nature of content and services and take advantage of the full range of opportunities offered by communication technologies.
media literacy and education for citizenship is not only important for learning about the tools but also to encourage a shift in political cultures and practices so that individuals can be not only digital consumers and users but active citizens in connected societies.
i remain very concerned by the lack of effective response to cyber bullying and discrimination online.
consumers and citizens in particular the most vulnerable especially children must be properly protected online.
member states and the eu must work with internet providers and platforms in order to ensure that illegal and offensive content is effectively taken down and stays down.
of fake news and disinformation started to move so powerful that it was winning the imagination and perception of western societies.
polish military pilots were blamed the president himself his generals.
we had to swallow every possible humiliation including the desecration of the bodies of the victims which is totally alien to our civilisation.
the concept of free speech protects not only that which we agree with but also that which is critical or disturbing.
by contrast illegal hate speech that incites violence or hatred based on race ethnic or national origin colour or religion is not protected by free speech.
it is illegal. the commission will continue to make sure that eu law is enforced in the online as well as in the offline world.
in all these actions we have to bear in mind that it is our responsibility to protect fundamental rights and freedom of expression in the european union.
we have to believe in the common sense of our people.
once again fake news is bad but the ministry of truth is even worse.
first of all reinforce the strategic communication task force that we already have and establish an online space where the public at large can find a range of tools for identifying this information with an explanation of how they work;
it was of course still a shocking reminder of the atrocities of nazis not least to jews roma and the lgbti community but a decade ago hate speech was contained.
due to social media it can spread without control. hate speakers are now even in power in some countries.
therefore i am very encouraged by the eu code of conduct with facebook microsoft twitter and youtube to counter hate speech online.
the it companies need to work closely with civil society and with the victims of hate speech and share best practice among themselves.
we have a duty to stop the hate in time this time around and hate speech is not what freedom of expression is.
hundreds of millions of people only access news through social media and now the largest tech players facebook youtube google should act with equally massive responsibility.
the algorithms they perfect for optimal advertising revenues can become propaganda and hoax vehicles and the claims that platforms are neutral intermediaries especially with more and more self regulation will prove unsustainable.
no one wants a ministry of truth but i am also not reassured when silicon valley or mark zuckerberg are the de facto designers of our realities or of our truths.
through the e commerce directive and otherwise we must ensure that free speech access to information and the protection from discrimination are ensured.
but we must be careful not to treat hate speech the same way as distasteful undesired shocking or insulting expressions.
even the ones that we have heard here today should be debated in an open manner.
i say managing migration'.
subject to discussions or negotiations.
the news was shocking and striking when we saw the images and the stories from the detention camps.
and several times i have told you we are working to close these camps.
some of these countries are at the same time the three and the international agencies of the united nations system.
the european union has in the past several times either turned its eyes away from this issue leaving the front line member states alone.
i say managing migration which is the partnership approach.
because this helps us pass on the message inside europe and outside of europe that this is not the policy we've chosen purely out of values and good feelings.
clear to all of us is a challenging one and in particular on issues like this. we are well aware of our responsibilities in this respect i would say on two different levels both of them extremely important.
we know that the partners around the world count on us to make sure that the multilateral approach and the multilateral method are the ones followed when tackling a global issue. i would never never say problem' because we're not talking about a problem if not for those
we know very well that this is challenged from different sides in the world of today.
this could be true for issues related to different things from trade to human rights and crisis management but also on migration and refugees.
one is the investment in the un system and in multilateral approaches as such.
and we know very well that the world looks at the european union to create consolidate and strengthen alliances globally to work in a multilateral manner.
so we know that the un system counts on us.
the european union has not always been on this line.
this is also the policy that is bringing results.
migration movements are massive global phenomena that need to be managed together with partnerships that involve countries of origin countries of transit and countries of destination.
i will give you an example of how this partnership approach is bringing results because this is the basis on which we are going to work.
i don't say stopping a problem'.
we also know that we have a responsibility to build consensus globally on a certain way of managing migration.
it should be protected at all levels and we must support the international rules that ensure all migrants are treated in a way that respects their dignity.
in my northwest england constituency rapar has been working alongside migrants for decades. today they are extremely worried about the uk's hostile environment which pressures migrants to voluntarily return to their home countries.
rapar is exceptionally concerned that the home office is now infiltrating community groups and setting up voluntary returns clinics with the clear aim of pushing vulnerable people to leave the uk.
our approach is based on solidarity shared responsibility multilateralism and engagement and we would like these four principles to be reflected in the global compacts on refugees and migrants. the crucial point for the global compact on migrants is to strike a balance in addressing regular and irregular migration. a person should never risk their life when seeking a better future abroad.
it is and we all recognise it a global phenomenon that requires global solutions. no country can manage this alone but together we can set up a humane dignified and secure mechanism for governing human mobility. over the past years the european union has built a comprehensive approach to addressing migration
through the new joint task force that the european union has set up with the african union and the united nations an additional fifteen zero migrants stranded in libya have been assisted in the voluntary returning to their homes where they receive re integration support.
all this was possible thanks to our common work inside the european union and to strong cooperation with our partners in our region and worldwide.
in our globalised world human mobility can only be addressed effectively by the international community as a whole.
and forced displacement.
at the same time the global compact should promote effective return policies.
global challenges need global solutions and the eu as a global actor must do more to address the root causes of migration from conflict to poverty and climate change. it is time to have a global governance of flows sharing responsibility for orderly and safe migration.
the eu must take the lead to move from illegal to legal migration combat smuggling of migrants implementing resettlement and voluntary returns and supporting countries of origin.
we met women children and young men coming back from libya.
trafficking in human beings goes hand in hand with trafficking of drugs and weapons.
people die in the desert in their thousands of hunger and heat abandoned by traffickers.
we have a responsibility to help people trapped in detention camps get out of there back via niger.
the eu operation in niger is effective but more resources are urgently needed for resettlement with unhcr and repatriation of returnees from libya by oim to home countries in africa and for reintegration projects in their local communities. key are the projects for reconversion of traffickers into legal work
i see the benefits of immigration but only if it is managed controlled and legal.
but i also see the negatives of immigration on communities if we continue the chaotic uncontrolled mass migration policies that we see from many in this chamber and the global elites who support it.
the problem with this un global compact is that it assumes all migration is exactly the same and it also ignores illegal migration.
it also says more importantly that international bodies should have power over the nation states to determine the setting of immigration policies across the globe.
the frustration of the people in europe and the world to deal with the economic problems of mass migration is real.
it should be the voters who elect parties to deal with this that have the power not the unelected global elites or their lackeys.