lmms-lab-audio/europal-asr huggingface dataset:
Date: 2019-03-12
Mr President, first of all let me thank Anna Fotyga for her excellent job in drawing up this report being presented to us for our attention and consideration. The EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development brings the EU's relationship with Afghanistan to a new qualitative level of mutually beneficial cooperation. Undeniably, Afghanistan has made very significant progress in many fields, as rightly mentioned by Anna before. However, security concerns, corruption, human rights issues and other problems still persist, endangering the current achievements. Afghanistan is at a crucial point in its history, as in the absence of further efforts, all of the progress and sacrifices hitherto could be wasted. Withdrawing the coalition forces prematurely could have negative consequences and should be decided by all consulting allies. The European Union is committed to a long-term partnership with Afghanistan. Therefore, following the November 2018 Geneva Conference on Afghanistan, the European Union announced a financial package worth EUR 474 million to support state-building and public sector reforms, health, justice and elections, as well as to address migration and displacement challenges in Afghanistan. I hope that this Agreement embedded in a regional approach which includes the Afghanistan neighbourhood, the global powers and the international community, can pave the way for a better future for the country. The first step to the path of stability is peace. Achieving a peace agreement between warring parties in Afghanistan is a priority at the moment, and I hope very much that the Qatar process of negotiations will include the Afghanistan Government in the very essence of this meaning. In particular, a peace deal cannot compromise the values of democracy, human rights and rule of law. The citizens of Afghanistan deserve this.
Date: 2019-03-13
Mr President, now, Mrs May may be totally incompetent, but she is following a plan. Right from the start, the plan was to delay Brexit, impede Brexit and, finally, to overturn Brexit. The whole leaving process has been built on false arguments. The principal one being that we cannot leave without the mythical good deal. Now, the deal is appallingly bad and it has been rejected by the Commons not because it was bad, but because it wasn't bad enough for them. Later today, Parliament will reject leaving on the so-called no deal option. On Thursday, it is likely to vote in favour of an extension of Article 50, but what for? Mr Juncker has already told Her Majesty's Government like naughty schoolchildren that there will be no third chance to renegotiate. In the UK, we have a government and a parliament that does not want to leave the European Union and it intends to betray the democratic decision of the referendum. Now, Vice-President Timmermans has expressed his exasperation with the UK in rejecting the EU's deal. Mr Timmermans said that only the UK Parliament can give direction in this matter. But this is not so. The Council and Commission can give direction. When the Commons asks for an extension to Article 50 then you must reject it. Article 50 says that if no agreement is reached by 29 March then the Treaties automatically cease to apply. Do nothing and ensure that the UK is ejected from the European Union on 29 March. Do yourselves a favour, do us a favour, and kick us out!
Date: 2019-03-13
Madam President, last night we saw another manifestation of the inability of the British Parliament to reach a consensus. A reduced majority, but still the fourth most devastating defeat in history for a UK government. Last night Theresa May set out three options. The first was to revoke Article 50 possibly the first time those words have passed her lips in public. Secondly, she talked about holding a second referendum. Ditto. And don't underestimate the significance of her saying those words. The third option was to negotiate a new deal. I think, though, that the message has finally got through in Westminster that the third option is not possible in any sensible timeframe. So now it's down to no deal or no Brexit. It seems very likely that tonight the UK parliament will reject no deal. They will not reject no Brexit. Of course, we have a limited direct role here, we have to choose our language carefully, we're giving signals. So let me assure colleagues here that there is a strong will in the UK for a second vote. The People's Vote campaign is the biggest grassroots pro-EU European movement. Polls show a majority in favour of a second referendum. Like all things Brexit, it won't be easy, but don't believe the voices you've heard from the Brits here today. Seven out of nine speakers today represent only 1.5% of the seats in the House of Commons. They are spouting their usual rot and nonsense. They are not the patriots. They are the ones advocating a no-deal Brexit, and that's an act of unparalleled harm to the British people and the European Union. They are not the patriots. Nobody calling themselves a patriot would advocate that kind of harm. No one laying claim to the title unionist would advocate a no-deal Brexit. No one who wants to support the Good Friday Agreement would advocate a no-deal Brexit. They are not in the majority actually they are all in the bar coalescing around a beer now. They don't even bother to stay and listen. So I say to them: you are not today's people. You are yesterday's voices. We are the voices of today, and young people support my position completely.
Date: 2019-03-13
Madam President, I would like to welcome Commissioner Dombrovskis again to this Parliament. It was not easy to include our proposals and ideas for this regulation as the two co-rapporteurs held onto this file very tightly. Nevertheless, we have been active through the whole procedure because we are committed to those people who suffered the most due to non-performing loans. We have always said that non-performing loans have an inherent human dimension. They were built up because European law was implemented incorrectly. At the very beginning of this regulation, the Union acknowledges that there were important laws that were not implemented properly in some Member States: the Late Payment Directive, the Consumer Rights Directive and the Mortgage Credit Directive. Let me warn you that if we do not improve the implementation of EU law in some Member States, we may risk suffering a new wave of NPLs in some Member States in the next few years, even in the event of a new huge financial crisis or another economic crisis. Proper implementation is key. Proper implementation means prevention and commitment to our values, our rules and our Union. Parliament cannot fail in approving only one law and not the other. Without the directive, the regulation would lose all its meaning and major institutions could not have the legal incentive they need to put their non-performing loans on the market. We consider that this Parliament needs to send a strong message. It is therefore important that the whole NPL legislative package is approved. This is our responsibility.
Date: 2019-03-13
Madam President, the establishment of a comprehensive strategy to address the issue of non-performing exposures is an essential goal for the Union in its attempt to make the financial system more resilient. While addressing the non-performing loans is primarily the responsibility of banks and the Member States, there is also a clear Union dimension to reducing the current high stock of non-performing exposures, as well as to preventing any expressive build-up of NPLs in the future, and to preventing the margins of system-wide risks in the non-banking sector. I consider that an integrated financial system will enhance the resilience of the European monetary union to adverse shocks, while at the same time reducing the need for public risk sharing. Nevertheless, this proposal is crucial as it aims to ensure sufficient loss coverage by banks for future NPLs by amending the existing Capital Requirement Regulation.
Date: 2019-03-13
Mr President, I will start by thanking Jacqueline Foster for being very good colleague. I have enjoyed working with her and I wish her the very best. As concerns this draft regulation, I would keep three key words in mind. One is 'efficiency', one is 'complementarity' and the third is 'dialogue'. Efficiency because finally we have an instrument of a purely trade-defence nature. The regulation will now empower the Commission to investigate if there is a reason, or rather a reason-based complaint, and on its own initiative. Efficiency also because the Commission will not have to wait for EU airlines to be affected: it will be in a position to act if there is evidence of a so-called threat of injury, and that has been one of the key issues in the negotiations. Efficiency too because we have a clear timeframe: a timeframe to investigate and a timeframe to terminate the investigation. We also have the possibility of shortening the timeframe should a matter of urgency arise. And efficiency also in the sense that the regulation provides the Commission with actual means to restore fair competition through the adoption of measures of a financial or operational nature. Complementarity: of course, the regulation as such would not make our industry competitive but, together with the comprehensive bilateral agreements that we are concluding, we have a whole system. An investigation, as it proceeds, can, at a given moment, feed in into the bilateral efforts to resolve a problem. And lastly dialogue: we will have a dialogue and consultation with all stakeholders in the Member States concerned and that through the 'Union interest' test. Secondly, we will have a dialogue with the partners, as I have indicated, through the bilateral agreements and their mechanisms. And, finally, Parliament will be informed in the course of the negotiations. So this is not protectionism. This is a good tool that we will have.
Date: 2019-03-14
Madam President, our GSP system is a key example of how we use our economic power to leverage our weight and to bring about positive change for people in third countries, and the report that we're adopting today illustrates how GSP beneficiaries have, over the course of six years, substantially increased their exports to the EU. But this kind of preferential access should not be taken for granted. It is attached to clear conditions, for example when it comes to improving democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and following the increasingly repressive behaviour of Cambodian leader Hun Sen, Commissioner Malmström initiated a procedure to temporarily withdraw Cambodia's trade preferences, under the Everything but Arms scheme, and this is a very welcome move, that should be echoed by all Member States' Commissioners, as well as the High Representative in all their dealings with Cambodia. And at the same time we cannot wait another second to initiate a similar procedure for Myanmar. The ongoing killings, systematic human rights violations and the imprisonment of journalists, do not warrant the trade preferences that Myanmar currently does enjoy. So, I believe it is very important that we use GSP in a good, but also principled, way and thereby maximise our global impact.
Date: 2019-03-14
Mr President, we in the European Parliament awarded the Sakharov Prize to human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, and she continues to work tirelessly, and with immense courage, to defend ordinary Iranians in the many instances the too many instances where their human rights are not respected. In particular, she was the lawyer of the many women protesting against the compulsory wearing of the hijab, before she herself was arrested again, and imprisoned again, and handed the preposterous sentence of 38 years in prison and 148 lashes. This is inhumane and unacceptable, and High Representative Mogherini should publicly join our call for the immediate release of Nasrin Sotoudeh. The obsession with Nasrin Sotoudeh on the part of the Islamic Republic's judiciary and other authorities, and their insistence on silencing her, should only encourage us to hear what she is standing for the universal human rights of all Iranians and she deserves our unequivocal support.
Date: 2019-03-25
Thank you, Mr Kofod. Now, for four minutes, the second rapporteur, Mr Niedermayer.
Date: 2019-03-26
Madam President, we're being lobbied extensively by both sides of this debate. On one side I'm hearing from huge numbers of ordinary people who are concerned about the future of their Internet, and on the other side, we've got cocktail receptions, slick advertising, even saw a taxi on the way here advocating this legislation. Now don't think for a second that the creative industries are uniformly behind this legislation, because they're not. But the big players are the ones with the money to lobby and I care far more about the voices and views of my constituents, about ordinary people, than the views of lobbyists who are paid to tell us what they want us to think. Now, of course, what we need is a balance between protecting creators of copyrighted material and protecting the lawful rights of citizens going about their daily business. But this legislation, in particular Articles 11 and 13, does not deliver that balance. It is fundamentally illiberal, because in practice tech companies will end up treating citizens as guilty until proven innocent on copyright, content will end up being removed automatically. It will push one size fits all enforcement upon platforms across Europe, despite national copyright law being different from one country to the next. You can't deal with that minefield, so legal content will end up being treated as though it is illegal. Many of you here are true believers in the European project, all I can say is what I see from the United Kingdom, British people's opinions on this place haven't changed very much, people who supported remain still support remain, people who voted leave still support leave generally speaking, but I have had people come to me to tell me that they voted to remain in 2016 but now would vote leave because of the Copyright Directive. In other European countries, if you vote for this today, you will drive a wedge between the European Union and young people across Europe. This is bad legislation. It is classic end-of-term legislation. This Parliament has three and half weeks to complete its business ready for the European elections and things are being rushed through because of that. They have not been properly and fully considered. Please listen to your constituents on this. Please don't make the chasm between this Parliament and the people of the United Kingdom, the people of Europe, any wider than it already is.
Date: 2019-03-26
Madam President, no one is against fair copyright and protecting the legitimate rights of authors, but this directive is about promoting the interests of multinational corporations and maximising their profits. It is also about controlling and shutting down free speech and dissent not approved of by the media and political establishments. Dissenting voices are already being de-platformed and de-monetised and this will institutionalise censorship. UKIP MEPs and others forced a vote on this directive using the Rules of Procedure, otherwise it would have gone through on the nod last year. Members should take note that the European elections will follow shortly. Voters should take note of which MEPs and which parties voted for this directive, and they should vote against them on 23 May. The European Union and the political and media establishments want to suppress free speech and dissent. If MEPs vote for this directive, then they deserve to lose their seats.
Date: 2019-03-26
Mr President, making the foreign policy budget more accountable and more efficient is necessary, so when the Commission proposed a quite radical reform, I was open-minded. But what I've been hammering for, from that day on, is that the only way we could actually assess whether the proposed new so-called architecture that merges various funding lines into one would be more fit for purpose is if we knew how the money would be governed. That is still very weak spot in the Commission proposal. We put some proposals on the table a steering group between the External Action Service and the Commission, and it's not a secret that that cooperation can be improved but we also looked at how to ensure more conditionality to the billions of euros suggested under a so-called flexible amount. This Parliament needs to be able to apply scrutiny. With only 1.6 % of the budget reserved for human rights, my second warning is to avoid a total instrumentalising of the EU's foreign affairs budget for 'migration management' and 'countering terrorism'. We are a values and rules-based Union, and that should be reflected in the foreign affairs budget too.
Date: 2019-03-26
Madam President, I understand the seriousness of the situation in Algeria. The protests, thankfully, have so far been peaceful protests with young people taking to the streets because they believe in something different to what the Algerian Government at present is offering. One of the key comments that we see time and time again from people in Algeria is that they desperately want freedom of speech; that they want to be able to express themselves in ways that they've not been able to do of late. But the situation is incredibly serious: we've got the army chief calling for Bouteflika to be declared unfit to govern. The one point that I want to make specifically today, that has perhaps not been raised yet in this debate, is that freedom of speech must also imply freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is guaranteed under Article 36 of the Algerian Constitution, which states that freedom of religion and creed is inviolable. I want to mention the persecution of religious minorities in Algeria, and specifically Christians, because I've met Algerian pastors on two occasions who have come to the European Parliament to express their concerns about how they are being persecuted at present. Algeria has moved from number 42 to number 22 on the world watch list of most persecuting countries of Christians in just one year. We've seen churches having been closed, and particularly the EPA the Église protestante d'Algérie. We have seen the government using various administrative means to close down churches, and we have seen those who have preached on social media put in prison. We've seen those who import religious materials put in prison. We've seen those who convert to Christianity being persecuted. All I'd ask is that in all of these discussions, in all of these debates, please can we remember that Christians and other religious minorities are being persecuted in Algeria, as these matters are being discussed in the coming days.
Date: 2019-03-27
Mr President, I would have thought as a former Belgian Prime Minister you would know that it was Field Marshal Haig in 1914 who saved the Belgian town of Ypres from German domination... ...who then went on in 1918 to lead Britain in its greatest ever military feat, defeating Imperial Germany on the Western Front. Far from mocking Haig, as a Belgian, he should be a great hero to you. But never mind. Maybe that sums up your anti-Britishness. Sticking with Belgium, I thought what happened at the summit last week was a national humiliation, an impasse, because we have in Ms May a Prime Minister who hasn't got the courage, who hasn't got the vision, to carry out her many repeated promises: to take us out of the European Union this Friday, 29 March. It is not happening, and we are witnessing a slow motion betrayal perhaps the greatest betrayal of any democratic vote in the history of our nation and the reason, of course, is this Withdrawal Treaty. And I'll go back to the First World War: we won the war, but we had the Treaty of Versailles, and this Treaty is the modern-day equivalent. We have a reparations bill of GBP 39 billion we have to pay for nothing in return. We have the annexation of a part of our national territory in the shape of Northern Ireland. This Treaty is a bad piece. It is unacceptable, it is not Brexit, and it will not pass. I know that you're all getting terribly excited about what the House of Commons may do over the course of the next week, and we know what they'll do: they'll come back with some form of agreement around a customs union and the continued free movement of people. But even if they do that, the one thing that's inevitable is that we're headed for an Article 50 extension. And I think you should ask yourselves: do you really want that? Do you really want Brexit to utterly dominate the next couple of years of your business, to the exclusion of your many other ambitions? Do you really want the United Kingdom to contest the European elections to send back a very large number of Leave MEPs, just at a time when you're fighting populism, as you see it, across the continent? Do you really want me back in this place? Well there we are. And all for what? Because Brexit is going to happen anyway. Mr Tusk, if you think the British people have changed their minds on Brexit, you, sir, are deluded: what we actually now see are opinion poll leads of 15%, and in some cases nearly 20%, in favour of leaving. If we had another referendum, Leave would win it by a bigger margin, so why put yourselves through years of agony? I pay great tribute to Mr Juncker, to Mr Barnier, and to the Commission. You have prepared your no-deal scenario. It is highly professional. It shows that actually leaving with no deal is not going to cause huge disruption it even suggests that with no deal there's no need for a visible border in Ireland. So I would say to all of you, and to the national leaders: reject the British extension beyond 12 April, get Britain out, and then we can all just get on with the rest of our lives.
Date: 2019-03-27
Mr President, this Friday, 29 March should have been an historic day of significance for the United Kingdom: a day when, after 40 years of membership of the European institutions, the United Kingdom would again be an independent nation a nation working side-by-side with Europe but free from the federalist agenda of Brussels, and free to grow our own economy and control our own laws and destiny. After two years of negotiation, our Prime Minister has concluded a draft withdrawal agreement that has twice suffered historic defeats in the House of Commons a draft withdrawal agreement that would see Northern Ireland leaving on different terms to the rest of the United Kingdom under the backstop; an agreement from which the Attorney General advises that there is no legal right of withdrawal. The Democratic Unionist Party wants to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion, but this deal will endanger the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom. It is not a price that we, as Unionists, are willing to pay. Finally, some advice to Mr Tusk and Mr Bullmann: 17.4 million British voters signalled their desire to leave the European Union. I think this House owes them some respect and should acknowledge their democratic choice, instead of focusing on everyone else. To Mr Verhofstadt: the British Parliament has already voted for a unilateral agreement around citizens' rights. It's time we caught up in these institutions. And to Ms Zimmer: the Belfast Agreement has a principle of consent. It is only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland that there will be any moves towards a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. You would do well to remember that.