lmms-lab-audio/europal-asr huggingface dataset:
Date: 2019-01-30
Madam President, public opinion and, indeed, public anger had a big impact on those votes in the House of Commons yesterday and with it, we've seen a diminution of the risk of a second referendum for now, the prospect of Article 50 being extended taken off the table and when I hear speakers despite the Spelman amendment saying today they're worried that the risk of a no deal has increased, you're right, it has, but not because of what happened last night in Westminster, but because of the response, gentlemen, we got from you this afternoon. Even when the Prime Minister actually gets a majority behind her and, alright, I accept she made a dreadful mistake by signing up to the backstop. You summoned her. At 4.15 in the morning, she left Downing Street, she went to meet the ultimatum that you've set her, she signed up to something that has proved to be a disaster. She signed up to something that no country unless it had been defeated in war would have signed up to. We now realise that mistake and actually, the House of Commons, the country, is overall looking for a deal, but do you know something? Before the referendum, no one knew who the European Commission were. That Maoist Barroso was a complete unknown. You guys are now household names and what we've seen is an appreciation in Britain that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels have been talking down to and humiliating the Prime Minister of our nation, and we don't like it and even when she comes back, trying to be reasonable, saying let's renegotiate, you're not prepared to give an inch. The reason that a no-deal Brexit has got a little bit closer is because of the sheer language and attitude, not just from the Commission, but from many in Parliament towards the United Kingdom. I think public opinion will be very, very angry that there is no give today from anybody in Brussels whatsoever. I think many will say, 'we're simply dealing with fanatics who are not prepared to be reasonable or make any sense of compromise'. Of course, Theresa May has made compromise after compromise, way too many compromises in my view, so I think we are beginning to think that the public will come to a view that no deal is better than the backstop, and that's a big problem. It's a big problem for all of you, who want to get re-elected in a few weeks' time, because no deal means no GBP 39 billion and your voters will be coughing up the money. No deal means the hundred million bottles of Prosecco we buy every year from Italy will become more expensive, as will three quarters of a million German cars. So why don't we all prepare sensibly for a no-deal scenario? Why don't we prepare to go to the World Trade Organisation, use Article 24 so that we can, after we leave on March 29, have a two-year period of no tariffs, no quotas, no restrictions of any kind, no problems or difficulties with Ireland whatsoever? Brexit will have been delivered, you will have protected for at least two years your voters. That, ladies and gentlemen, right now, is the only possible constructive way forward.
Date: 2019-01-30
Madam President, the last two-and-a-half years have been a long and tedious series of spurious impediments put up in order to prevent us leaving the European Union, as exemplified by the classic backstop bull. The House of Commons rejected the so-called deal and sent Mrs May back to renegotiate with a Commission that has already told us that it won't renegotiate. The Commons may have rejected the amendment to extend Article 50 but it knows very well that the Withdrawal Act itself allows that date to be put back, and the Council of the European Union can extend Article 50 if it so agrees. Will we actually leave on 29 March? Or will the British political establishment manage to overthrow the result of the referendum altogether? The best thing that can now happen is if we have no-deal on 29 March and that we leave under the Withdrawal Act and on WTO terms. Article 50 will have expired and the treaties will cease to apply. If the British Parliament prevents this happening, then they will have put themselves in open rebellion against the British people and that will have profound consequences for any belief in democracy that is left in the United Kingdom.
Date: 2019-01-30
Thank you Commissioner. I must say that, for a Chair of the plenary, it is a pleasure to chair such a debate, which shows such a broad consensus. I must say that it is a very pleasant feeling. it is not always that the Chair has the possibility to experience the alignment that the Commissioner has spoken about. The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow.
Date: 2019-01-30
Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us at short notice. The debate is closed.
Date: 2019-01-30
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for a rapid and efficient negotiation process and now the final decision. This is a small but important piece of the puzzle in developing the digital single market. The .eu domain name can contribute to strengthening the online identity of the Union and simplify and increase cross-border trade. However, the credibility and trustworthiness of the .eu domain can also be abused by those who seek to undermine the legitimacy of our democratic system through cyber-attacks, disinformation and domain squatting. This is happening all the time and at all levels. That's why it's important that we look upon our digital infrastructure as a critical infrastructure, which needs to be resilient towards outside pressure and attacks. The new rules are clear that when a domain is registered or used in bad faith, it should be blocked. Those who are responsible for the .eu domain should work with all relevant actors to ensure that this is done swiftly and efficiently. It is a small step for the digital single market and a small step for the cybersecurity of the Union, but it is a step in the right direction and it will be one of very many other steps.
Date: 2019-01-30
Madam President, first of all, thanks to the rapporteur for well-implemented negotiations and good compromises. Competition policy is very much at the core of the European Union not because the European Union is about competition but because we are open to new ideas, innovations, new alternatives, new products, new services and new entrants. Competition policy means allowing consumers to be the masters of the market and that means we will ensure not only that no one can abuse market dominance but also that we can always have new entrants in all sorts of markets; not only maintaining pressure on prices but also ensuring we have dynamic development of our economy. That's why we need legal certainty and the rule of law, and that's why my political group and I are sceptical about naming and shaming from this Parliament, or politicising how the Commission implements the competition rules. We must have the rule of law and fair competition, and that also means we need to consider the energy union and big, dominant operators such as Gazprom. They must be judged in the same way as any others and their abuse of market dominance must entail a reaction. Competition is for the consumers, and for a Europe that is open to change and dynamic development.
Date: 2019-02-11
Mr President, first of all, can I commend the rapporteur for his work on this proposal, especially the strong emphasis on a science-based framework of the proposal. I have always been a strong proponent of the use of scientific evidence when formulating policy. Independent science-led policy-making has and continues to be the most effective approach. The proposal also seeks to move closer to a policy of regionalisation. This frankly makes sense rather than adopting a blanket approach. Regionalisation has the benefit of delivering specific regulation for specific sea basins. As the UK prepares for its departure from the EU, it is vital we ensure a strong foundation for future cooperation. In this case I welcome the focus on the sustainable management of shared stocks. While there is still much uncertainty surrounding and regarding Brexit, for the fishing communities in my constituency of Northern Ireland, I am hopeful that this proposal would at least deliver some degree of certainty for them.
Date: 2019-02-11
Mr President, I won't try to speak on four different reports in 90 seconds, but there are some rare moments of agreement between eurosceptics and federalists even, when it comes to the European Ombudsman and holding EU institutions to account. But what troubles me most is the report on European citizenship. It seeks to impose an EU identity upon citizens in countries across Europe. That's not a European identity you can feel European while still considering these structures, these institutions to be bad for democracy and bad for accountability. And if there's one thing that we should realise by now, that should be absolutely obvious by now, it is that the state cannot impose identity on the people. We've got more calls for taxpayers' money to be spent to attack any anti-EU dissenting voice. And when you define pro-EU as being good and anti-EU as being propaganda, when the state dictates speech and opinion, you erode democracy. And then to cap it all, there is the suggestion that Europe Day 9 May should be made into a bank holiday across Europe, to bribe voters with a holiday to like the European Union more. Don't get me wrong, in the United Kingdom especially we definitely do need more bank holidays, but I wonder whether 29 March or 23 June might be a little bit more fitting.
Date: 2019-02-11
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Ashley Fox, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on a comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics ) .
Date: 2019-02-12
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on policy challenges and strategies against women's cancers and related comorbidities, by Daniela Aiuto, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality .
Date: 2019-02-12
Madam President, in 'LGBTI', what does the 'I' stand for? It stands for intersex people, not for ideology. Behind that unknown letter, there are people who suffer from discrimination and violence, and have suffered since childhood. I'm proud to be the author for the PPE Group of what is the first-ever resolution on the human rights of intersex people the forgotten letter 'I'. Children are being subjected, without informed consent, to medical treatment and surgical operations which damage their health and reproductive rights. Think! What if it was your child? In this time of populism on both sides of the Atlantic, the human rights agenda is under attack. We are seeing a normalisation of sexist and homophobic rhetoric, in which the LGBTI community has become an easy target of the extreme right. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity should not have any place in our modern societies. I want to agree with you, Mr Moraes, that the anti-discrimination directive, on which I am the shadow rapporteur for the PPE Group, should move forward. It's unacceptable that it has been blocked for years in the Council. Too often, LGBTI people are victims of bullying, hate speech, homophobia, stereotypes and stigmatisation, at school and online. The European Union must stand up for open societies and take the lead in respecting fundamental rights globally, living up to our core values of tolerance, equality and diversity. While legislation, including on access to justice, is a necessary step, it's not enough. We have to join forces to change the rhetoric and the attitudes, and, with our joint resolution, we should secure the future of the LGBTI List of Actions that expires now. So, we are calling on you, Commissioner, and on the Commission to adopt a clear strategy and an action plan to make sure that we will promote and protect LGBTI people in Europe and beyond, recognising that LGBTI rights are human rights.
Date: 2019-02-13
The next item is the topical debate on fair taxation for a just society ). I should like to inform Members that this debate does not include time for the catch-the-eye procedure and that no blue cards will accepted.
Date: 2019-02-13
Mr President, taxes are always paid by the taxpayers. You can hear that in the name. It doesn't matter how you do it, but it will always be the taxpayers who pay tax, and the fact is that in the European Union we have the highest taxes in the world. European taxpayers are paying much more tax 10% to 15% higher than any of the economies competing with us. That's a problem for jobs and investment which we won't solve by having even higher taxes at European level, although you over there always believe that higher taxes are fair and just. It is fair and just that people can live on their incomes. It is fair and just that we can attract investment and get new jobs and more taxpayers: thatʼs fair and just.
Date: 2019-02-13
Mr President, Mr Tarand, you said the European Union should have to reply with force to Mr Putin's Russia. What kind of force do you have in mind? On what forces are the European Union's security and defence now based?
Date: 2019-02-14
Mr President, the Chechen director of Sakharov prize-winning Memorial, Oyub Titiev, has been in prison for over a year now on trumped-up charges, and we expect a verdict any day now. The risk that human rights defenders in Chechnya are taking is illustrated by the fact that Titiev's predecessor, Natalya Estemirova, was brutally murdered, and others face constant threats and intimidation. So today we call for the release of Oyub Titiev and the dropping of charges, and we urge the Chechen authorities to respect their own laws and constitution and at least every citizen's human and legal rights. The harassment of NGOs and journalists really has to stop, but we also need to hold to account the perpetrators of the worst human rights violations through a European 'Magnitsky Act'. It is urgent. I call on celebrities who think it is fancy to take money from a dictator to perform or to be present to stop doing that and to consider the money they make that way dirty money.
Date: 2019-02-14
Mr President, all the promises of reform that came with the appointment of Mohammed bin Salman and his lofty vision 2030, and that were met with much wishful thinking all around the world, have been definitively crushed by actions such as the systematic violations of women's rights and human rights and by the lack of basic freedoms that people face. Women are effectively second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia, and that is unacceptable. More specifically, now, the arrests and torture of the brave women's rights activists and we name all of them in this resolution are absolutely appalling. Their families are being intimidated and are facing travel restrictions because their passports have been revoked. This is absolutely appalling. We need to condemn, at the highest European level, these actions by Mohammed bin Salman and all the Saudi authorities involved. More importantly, however, these actions and the violations of human rights in Saudi Arabia have to have consequences. We need a European Magnitsky Act to hold perpetrators of human-rights violations to account individually, and we need to stop the export of the very surveillance technologies, built in Europe, which are used for repression in countries like Saudi Arabia. It is high time that we responded, in our treatment of Saudi Arabia, not to the beautiful words that they say, but to the ugly deeds that must have consequences.
Date: 2019-03-11
Mr President, I would like to say a word about the agenda, please. I have just seen a report that Mrs May is coming to Strasbourg in order to speak to Mr Juncker. Are you aware of that, and if so will you invite her to address this Parliament?
Date: 2019-03-11
Mr President, my congratulations as well. I wouldn't have expected anything less of Paolo De Castro than the report he has brought forward, but I also congratulate all involved on the remarkable speed with which this agreement was reached. The dominant bargaining power of large operators in the food supply chain has left farmers squeezed between the processors and the large multiples. Unfair trading practices have been a continuous problem for farmers across Europe and it is sensible to introduce extra protection for farmers. I am pleased this will be done in conjunction with already existing frameworks in Member States. For too long, we have seen and continue to see power concentrated in the hands of the buyers. This has resulted in an uneven playing field whereby farmers have had little influence to exert in the marketplace and been subject to unfair practices to cut their margins when you look at the fact that across Europe, farmers receive an average of 21% of the final price of the agricultural product. The various measures in this directive, such as banning late payments for perishable goods and banning late cancellations, will go a long way to restoring the imbalances, give farmers extra protection and keep food at the highest standards and quality. But we must not and I give this warning become complacent that our work here is done. One of the greatest obstacles to successful European legislation lies within incorrect implementation at Member State level not at Brussels, at Member State level and this is where we have got to follow it through. The key is implementation and monitoring what has been done. To those who actually say it should be more, people are always looking for more, but you have to crawl before you walk. At least we've done it. At least we've followed it through. Congratulations to all involved.
Date: 2019-03-11
Mr President, I would like to underline the fact that Vietnam is the European Union's second largest trading partner in the Association of South-East Asian Nations and also one of the most dynamic emerging countries in the East Asia region. This agreement follows on from many previous forest law enforcement governance and trade agreements with countries in Africa and Indonesia, and it builds on the work of the EU Timber Regulation. As a Member of the Committee on Development, I have to stress here that I support this agreement. The issue of indigenous communities must also be kept in mind. As we know, indigenous communities are often heavily reliant on forests, and very often are the victims of environmental exploitation. It is important to ensure that the agreement complements the EU commitments to environment protection. We do not want these agreements to be seen as a framework for large-scale exploitation of forests. There must be coherence between the agreements and our commitments to prevent mass deforestation.
Date: 2019-03-11
Mr President, I don't support what Russia has done in the Crimea, or its recent actions in the Sea of Azov, and I don't see why anyone who's gay would want to live under a regime that oppresses gay people. I don't want to see Oleg Sentsov still in jail as a political prisoner. This year, Russia has entered the Open Doors World Watch List, a list of nations which do the most persecution of Christians on the planet, a fact that hasn't made it into the report. I can't believe for one second that Russian officers just happened to be visiting Salisbury Cathedral at the time of the Novichok attack, so don't expect me to have anything positive to say about the Putin regime in Russia. It seems to me that a large chunk of Russia's foreign policy approach is the nation-state equivalent of trolling. They're trying to provoke us into overreacting to the wrong things, they're trying to wrong-foot us, and it seems to me that in this House some people are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. And this notion that Russia was meddling in the British referendum campaign is nonsense. During the campaign, Facebook tells us that Russian operatives spent 97 cents that's US cents, about 80 euro cents on political advertising, and even that was a mistake because it was material targeted at an American audience that missed. Putin wants to be the villain of the piece. It suits his strategy to do so. It suits the interests of this place to try to claim that there was something up with the British referendum because frankly you don't like the result. There were indeed some accidental rule breaches on both sides in the British referendum campaign. The pro-EU Lib Dems were fined, the pro-EU Open Britain were fined for rule breaches. Some other allegations were simply not followed up on. Nothing, though, was material to the outcome as per the UK Court of Appeal ruling of 4 March. There is no evidence that gives rise to any soundly based grounds for believing the outcome of the referendum would have been different if those breaches had not occurred. The very fact that this constant assault on the referendum result and upon British democracy in general is being recycled time and time again, shows a pathological reluctance to accept the will of the British people.
Date: 2019-03-11
Mr President, Ms May has arrived in Strasbourg this evening for yet another meeting with Mr Juncker. How many times will she plead for the worst possible terms she can get? The last two years and nine months have been an elaborate charade designed to propagandise the British people into believing that leaving the EU is just too difficult, and this is just the latest scene in the drama. We are being positioned, at best, for a sham exit. This whole process has been about arriving at a so-called deal whereby we leave in name only. If our treacherous Prime Minister and political class cannot prevent Brexit altogether, they at least intend to position us for re-entry as quickly as possible. Whatever betrayal agreement Ms May agrees, it will not be the end of the story. It will just begin the next phase of the British people's struggle to leave the European Union.
Date: 2019-03-12
I want to raise the question as to why the Green Group would not support naming this legislation the 'Magnitsky Act' not only because it has a symbolic meaning, which is obvious, but because it's a way of defining why we need to have this legislation in place, and to send a signal to those who use criminality to make themselves rich at the expense of their own people. Why couldn't your group support giving this legislation the proper name?
Date: 2019-03-12
Mr President, the annual debate about Turkey's progress towards EU accession has become more difficult and painful each year. It is now a report on regress. A lot has happened over the past year and, while it's absolutely legitimate to hold the perpetrators of the failed coup and the attack on the Grand National Assembly to account, nothing justifies the overreaction that continues to haunt Turkey: hundreds of thousands fired from their jobs or arrested; abuse of the state of emergency and counterterrorism measures; limitations to press and internet freedom; and trumped-up charges to accuse civil society leaders, such as Osman Kavala. All in all, core principles are at stake: the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and the rule of law. These developments impact disproportionately on the opposition and on women, LGBTI people, journalists, religious minorities, human rights defenders and other minorities. But everybody in Turkey, whether openly or quietly in their hearts, knows what is going on and fears what may yet come. A fear of what could get worse still seems to paralyse the Commission and the Council too. Or is it the cynical outsourcing of the sheltering of refugees for which Turkey deserves our support that risks overshadowing everything else? I believe that our credibility is at stake and I insist that our words and principles must have meaning. As we warned in previous years, with the adoption of the constitutional reform package, a presidential system is now in place, one that lacks checks and balances, not so much according to us but according to the Venice Commission. So we need to be honest and principled. When we continue our relations on trade, defence, foreign policy or asylum, we must always work with Turkey on the basis of the rule of law and respect for human rights.