kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it is absolutely going to be the focus of the un general assembly where i hope we will take the opportunity to seriously discuss and make some progress across the united nations on this. i believe the security council has to work tirelessly to find common ground to support mr brahimi.
still today massacres continue and we see no end to the plight of so many innocent syrians.
done now. it means setting aside the funds that we are going to need to be able to do this because as well as the additional support for humanitarian aid we have to find the resources to be able to support the people and to support the transition that is going to be moving
us. i remind honourable members that our delegation remains open in damascus and is ready to assist him and his team in any way.
one of the issues that i have already touched upon is the need to make sure that we work to support the opposition parties.
we can. we have engaged in every aspect of trying to find solutions diplomatic political working with member states to ensure that we are absolutely determined in supporting the efforts of the security council the efforts to bring a common position that will enable the united nations to move forward and efforts to see what can be done to support the countries of the region which are as we speak dealing with the impact in every possible
but the truth is that despite all the efforts the international community is in a sense at a deadlock.
we will move without further delay; the work has already started to see what more now could
we have to work closely with the neighbouring countries to coordinate and help in the massive challenge of refugees leaving and those who are displaced internally.
there could be more violence and suffering and the most radical elements on all sides will become stronger bringing further militarisation and the risk of sectarian violence.
particularly where we can see that they can work together in support of the people of syria and of course building on our approach on human rights to ensure that all are included regardless of faith gender and so on. we also have to keep up the economic pressure as
our outreach on the ground which we do through the people we have on the ground and through all the contracts that we have as well.
that means bringing all the efforts that are currently going on to do that together so that there is a common approach and a general move forward in that direction.
i do not think assad is losing sleep over eu sanctions.
is this what we are coming up with as a result of a council one year and two months after the imposition of an eu arms embargo? i do not think this does any justice to the eu as a global player.
words are no longer enough for the syrian people.
i quote eu countries will be obliged to inspect vessels and aircraft heading to syria if they suspect they contain weapons or equipment for internal repression'.
the eu has imposed sanctions and provided humanitarian aid in cooperation with our partners etc.
but this means nothing any more for the syrian people who are being slaughtered every day caught between a murderous regime and foreign fighters ranging from hizbollah to al qaida.
the options are not easy but doing nothing is no longer one of them.
i am surprised and confused about what a weapons embargo even means if this can continue to happen.
i appreciate the complexity of the international reality around syria but i do think that doing nothing the way we have for the past year and a half is no longer an option.
otherwise we are responsible for the radicalisation of the conflict.
mr president several months ago i raised the issue of journalists and media personnel being detained and their services being hacked by the syrian authorities to thwart information reaching the outside world.
we have no knowledge about where these people are or how they are being kept.
what steps are we as a european union taking to monitor and investigate this?
it is quite clear that as an international community we are demonstrating a very limp wristed approach. commissioner do you have a single european leader who is willing to establish either a no fly zone or to arm the free syrian army?
if you do who?
if you do not is it within the power of your office to encourage them to come to that position?
we must not think that a government of syria based on the opposition will be democratic observant of human rights and the rule of law.
when the west in future asks itself whether or not a regime should be removed and replaced it should ask itself a second question replaced by what or by whom?
and would it be an improvement? we might then ask a third question which countries and interest groups stood to gain by regime change in syria?
the us the world's biggest economy has failed to agree to specific greenhouse gas emission reductions for two thousand and twenty and many other developed industrialised nations are uncertain as to whether the ambitious actions required are possible.
we can encourage developing nations to follow a different less environmentally damaging path of industrialisation.
although individual states in the us have begun to tackle climate change there is a woeful lack of leadership from the federal government.
the establishment of an effective global carbon market is crucial as is international consensus if we are to avoid the risk of protectionist measures relating to co two emissions within the eu.
we cannot meet our targets without cooperation from other states.
we need the us and emerging economies such as india and china to form a partnership with us for the future of our planet.
at copenhagen we must encourage courageous leadership from the national governments of large industrialised nations.
they still have time to take a fresh approach that will be less environmentally damaging and we must help them in the planning and building of the infrastructure which will achieve this.
but let us think for a moment of the problems facing this summit.
it gives me the impression that some of our members have not had the benefit of a formal education. isn't this really just about the state being able to get its hand in ordinary people's trouser pockets to steal yet more tax from them?
enough please before we damage irrevocably the global economy.
the whole thing is a sham this bogus hypothesis this ridiculous nonsense that man made co two is causing global warming.
isn't this all about political control?
in the eu the biggest obstacle to introducing energy efficiency measures for both governments and for individual citizens is the lack of upfront financing.
also the idea that the international carbon market can fund eur thirty eight billion a year is unrealistic.
madam president i am concerned that the commission's calculations on international climate finance are just smoke and mirrors. first it has claimed that ninety of energy efficiency measures can be financed by developing countries themselves.
it is likely to be many decades before there is a properly functioning international carbon market so we need a new and additional financing measure now.
why does the commission believe that developing countries can finance efficiency measures without upfront funding when eu member states themselves have struggled to do so?
we have seen how slow the eu ets carbon market has been to get off the ground and how badly the carbon price has been thrown off course by the economic crisis.
i am though glowing hot in my opposition to the concept of man made climate change.
this is creating an aura of despair among coastal communities.
it is a vital and irreplaceable food for plant life.
the more plants receive the faster they grow. a shortage of this gas will be far more serious than a surplus. the alarmist and incorrect statements that suggest any increase in carbon dioxide will create significant rises in sea levels is being used as an excuse by local authorities not to maintain low cost wooden sea defences. when these inevitably rot after forty years' service nothing is done to repair them and homes are lost.
if computer predictions cannot forecast the weather properly in the short term they have no place whatsoever in predicting long term changes.
second offers in terms of financing.
the eu has already put on the table ambitious targets and commitments so far the second most ambitious on the table of negotiations.
indeed the fight against tropical deforestation is the largest immediate mitigation challenge for the ldcs and they can be beneficiaries through mechanisms such as reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation schemes of its international financing.
i am of the opinion that climate resilience and low carbon policies must be integrated into wider developments and the poverty reduction strategies of our partners.
two thousand and twenty these proposals will be discussed by the european council at the end of october and will hopefully be the basis for a fully fledged eu negotiation position on finance.
finally a word on the delivery channels for climate funding.
there is no place for north south confrontation when you are dealing with climate change. i would even go further and say that no other alliance can be as determining and effective as the one engaging the most vulnerable countries and the ones who have put on the negotiating table the most ambitious proposals to fight this plague
it is not a matter of choosing one or the other both are essential.
are compatible with poverty reduction objectives in those countries.
three joint political declarations have been signed respectively with africa the caribbean and the pacific plus one with the acp group as a whole.
another one is the readiness of the eu to take on its fair share of the estimated financing requirements public funding contributions being based on preferred criteria of ability to pay and responsibility for emissions. this may lead to an eu contribution between eur two billion and eur fifteen billion annually in.
third encouraging adequate eu contribution to finance climate actions in particular for adaptation which is the priority concern for those countries that are most vulnerable to climate change impact but who barely contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
they have to take the opportunity offered by climate financing to fully integrate adaptation into their development strategies and to move gradually to low carbon development paths for the longer term. although the focus has been up to now on adaptation for the poorest and most vulnerable developing countries
the eu is the first donor in the world and a leader in the fight against climate change.
to move forward in the negotiations the ec issued in mid september its own proposals on finance.
expectations are very high.
that is what europe has done and that is what we expect our partners to do as well.
we are all conscious that a deal on financing will be crucial to achieving an agreement in copenhagen.
it is now the time for putting offers on the table.
second promoting sound policies and strategies linking climate change and development.
we count on developing countries as well.
one of them is the need for short term international public funding for climate to be scaled up for the period two thousand and ten two thousand and twelve to respond as a priority to urgent needs identified in the most vulnerable developing countries and in particular ldcs sids and african countries as defined in the bali action plan.
you are already aware that there will be no ambitious deal in copenhagen if the concerns of the developing countries are not taken into account not only those of emerging countries but also very much the concerns of the most vulnerable and the poorest developing countries.
there can only be a single development strategy which incorporates climate concerns pursuing the objectives of sustainable development and poverty reduction.
but action by the eu alone is not enough.
we as the commission are not in favour of creating new funds.
in this spirit we already support the implementation of the existing national adaptation programmes of action of ldcs in fifteen eligible countries.
a specific focus on mechanisms to avoid deforestation and promote sustainable management of forests is crucial.
we have already guaranteed a unilateral twenty emission reduction by two thousand and twenty and we are committed to increase to thirty if comparable efforts are made by others according to their responsibilities and capabilities.
first building political alliances through reinforced dialogue on climate change.
making it too difficult for greens and others to push an ambitious agenda.
we have heard the climate change deniers here in this house.
two there is deforestation and desertification. this means that in some places there is no water.
we are seeing the diversion of oda budgets away from development.
climate change kills.
we need agreement and achievement now because climate change is placing poverty reduction at risk.
that is unacceptable and puts at risk the millennium development goals which must be achieved. at copenhagen we will see twenty seven countries acting as one to achieve ambitious targets.
it is the opportunity for the eu to speak with one voice and find solutions to a problem which is affecting us all.
if we consider the consequences of global warming it is obvious that the developing world is paying the price for environmental damage caused by the richer nations.
i know that there are others who hold a different view from the one that i hold but i do not believe that we can afford to wait fifty sixty or seventy years to find out who was right or who was wrong.
all countries must play their part in terms of achieving targets and sustainable development.
the development of such technologies is a vital component of our strategies to achieve our climate change targets.
madam president we must look at the opportunities that can flow from striking a comprehensive international agreement in copenhagen so that we can effectively arrest climate change.
that is why all the mainstream parties in this house are backing the council and the commission in copenhagen and why we backed the legislative package last year.
we will never make poverty history unless we tackle climate change and this house has a duty to respond to that call.
because when a young woman gets married in kenya in return for her hand in marriage her father receives cows in payment because cows are the currency.
we met young women girls who were being married at ever younger ages in northern kenya. why?
why then does the british labour party support aggressive and illegal wars that not only kill british soldiers iraqis afghans and in the future iranians but also produce vast increases in global emissions?
it is quite obvious that this cannot be tackled without dealing with the whole question of global poverty because individuals are not going to stop chopping down wood for the greater good of society if it means they themselves are going to starve.
madam president the issue of food security needs to be mentioned in this debate on climate change for the developing world in particular.
it is very difficult to ask people to look at climate change mitigation if their basic needs for food are not met.
we need to allow them to use the best available technology to produce in a sustainable way food which does not harm the environment and to tackle the issue of climate change.
i have a concern in relation to the world trade organisation and a deal on agriculture which does not take into account the impact for example of deforestation in brazil as it supplies beef to the european union.
like many others i would draw attention to the fact that in order for this to happen in regions of great poverty this house the council and the commission will have to take cognisance of the cost involved and there will have to be a strategy in order to tackle this.
however i would not like to leave this house without saying that in areas like my own in northern ireland areas of high energy costs there also needs to be some work done to take account of those who are disadvantaged where there are high levels of fuel poverty amongst disadvantaged people
then we will speak about the united states;
i believe this should be put on the agenda for copenhagen but it should also be put on the agenda for the forthcoming european union summit with india and other summits with the countries affected.
the global warming fixation is a classic example of how the political class here is out of touch with the little people who have to pay the bills.
while the eu backs the copenhagen proposals to further the deindustrialisation of the west and the corporate domination of the third world a growing majority of ordinary people regard climate change as an elite scam an excuse to tax and control us and to impose internationalist dogma and global government at the expense of the nation state.
can you not see the danger in this growing gulf?
man made global warming is an unproven theory based on manipulative statistics.
before the political class and the green industrial complex dare to impose a single new tax poisoned light bulb or useless wind farm on the ordinary taxpayer they need to try to convince the public that global warming is man made that returning to the warmer climate of medieval times would be a bad thing and that there is something that europe as opposed to the united states china and india can actually do about it. either hold a debate and close the gap between you and the people or do not complain when we nationalists the ones who listen to the people close it for you.
i believe this can be a successful deal.
the commission has worked tirelessly with the presidencies and parliament in order to obtain a compromise leading to efficient and legally sound mechanisms.
this will greatly add to the credibility of our visa system but i must also tell you that the commission has mixed feelings about the compromise we are debating today. despite the satisfaction that an agreement has finally been found the commission is disappointed about the form chosen for the reciprocity mechanism.
in the compromise during a period of two years any decision would be taken through an implementing act but after two years the procedure would switch to delegated acts.
as a matter of principle implementing and delegated acts cannot be used for taking the same decision.
however the commission regrets that the powers conferred on the commission with regard to the revised reciprocity mechanism are in the opinion of the commission not in compliance with articles two hundred and ninety and two hundred and ninety one of the treaty on the functioning of the european union.
and beyond matters of form the political objective to have a more efficient reciprocity mechanism has not been reached. the current compromise will not be efficient as during the first two years the commission can only adopt an implementing decision suspending the visa waiver for certain categories of citizens of the third country in question such as diplomatic and service passport holders.
aiming at enhancing the credibility of the common visa policy and ensuring more solidarity amongst member states.
for this reason in anticipation of the vote on thursday and the subsequent acts by the council i need to make the following formal statement on behalf of the commission the commission welcomes the adoption by the european parliament and the council of its proposal amending regulation no five hundred and thirty nine two thousand and one
i must thank in particular mr daz de mera for his tremendous effort in reaching a compromise in what has been a long and complex negotiation but one in which a cooperative spirit has always been maintained between the presidencies the rapporteur and the shadows and the commission.
this is a concrete and specific individual situation not a measure for general application as the treaty requires for a delegated act.
it is possible to have both implementing and delegated acts provided for in the same legislative text but for different types of mechanisms which is not the case here.
the reciprocity mechanism concerns a specific country whose citizens do not need a visa to visit the eu and which imposes a visa obligation on the citizens of one or more eu member states.
we will then have a safety brake that can be triggered to avoid a possible abuse of visa free travel.
the commission therefore reserves the right to make use of the remedies available under the treaty with a view to having this point clarified by the court of justice.
the commission cannot accept the current text on these mechanisms as we have strong doubts about its legality and effectiveness.
madam president honourable members despite the problems with the reciprocity mechanisms which i explained in my opening remarks i prefer now to focus on the positive elements of this compromise and above all on the fact that we will now have a suspension mechanism which ensures the credibility
first of all the suspension mechanism is not an instrument especially designed to cover the western balkan countries.
once the suspension mechanism is available we cannot exclude that if the current situation continues one or more member states will trigger the mechanism.
it must however be clear that triggering this mechanism will not automatically lead to suspending the visa waiver.
the commission will have to assess whether the conditions of the mechanisms are met and we have to assess the gravity of the situation.
it is the first trade agreement with a developed country an agreement that respects the level of development in ecuador and provides the opportunity for them to diversify the economy reduce dependency on oil exports and raw materials and create new jobs for ecuadorians.
even after the expiry we will continue to regularly analyse the state of the market and the eu producers and where necessary take appropriate action.
this mechanism needed to be amended to incorporate ecuador.
transparency will be improved and data on imports will be made regularly available and in a userfriendly manner. finally the institutions also agreed that before the stabilisation mechanism expires at the end of two thousand and nineteen the commission will assess the situation of eu banana producers.
with the amendments proposed by this parliament the amending regulation further improves the mechanism.
the banana stabilisation mechanism to which imports of bananas from ecuador will be subject is a good and efficient mechanism to ensure stability in the eu market in case of a surge in imports of bananas from ecuador.
a better and more stringent system of information based on reliable statistics on the trends in imports of bananas from three countries to the eu will be in place.
although banana imports will also benefit from our preferential rate an additional stabilisation mechanism will protect european producers from potential import surges.
this modified regulation enshrines even more of the worst aspects of our irrational relationship with this humble fruit.
it simultaneously increases the risk that andean countries will lose the preferential tariffs which underpin the livelihoods of poor farmers in countries like ecuador where two hundred zero families depend on banana production and fifty six of the banana plantations are smaller than ten hectares.
mr president bananas are symbolic fruit. they play such an important part in the politics of some countries that the phrase banana republic' is used to describe a corrupt regime dominated by powerful corporations.
our priority for agriculture is to protect the livelihoods of small producers against the power of global corporations.
how can it be rational that a tropical fruit which travels so far and bruises so easily is eaten more than any other in the uk?
this regulation does nothing to constrain the power of such powerful retailers who undermine the minimum wage in the ecuadorian banana sector.
its focus is to ensure supermarkets' ability to continue to use bananas as a loss leader so that their price does not reflect their true environmental cost.
the greens' priority for trade is to ensure a comfortable life for all without wasting energy and resources.