misclassified/meps_speeches_with_translation.csv huggingface dataset:
Speaker: Patrizia TOIA (Italy — Partito Democratico)
Political group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Date: 2019-11-26
Debate: Measures to address the impact on European agriculture of the WTO ruling on the Airbus dispute (debate)

  Patrizia Toia (S&D).   – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in reazione agli aiuti di Stato forniti al settore aeronautico si sono andati a colpire, da parte americana, i prodotti agroalimentari, in particolare le nostre indicazioni geografiche. Questo denota la volontà dell'amministrazione americana di rispondere piuttosto a esigenze di politica interna e di particolari settori produttivi.
Sono dazi, è stato già detto, che si aggiungono alla sofferenza che il settore agroalimentare ha dovuto subire per molte cause, ma anche a seguito delle dispute politiche e commerciali con la Russia. Bisogna perciò evitare il peggioramento della situazione, lo diciamo con molto calore ai rappresentanti della Commissione. In particolare, bisogna rafforzare programmi di promozione dei nostri prodotti per poter conquistare maggiori quote di mercato e compensare così le perdite causate dai dazi.
Accogliamo con dispiacere, perciò, che nel recente accordo sul bilancio per il 2020 Consiglio e Commissione non abbiano accolto la richiesta del Parlamento di aumentare i fondi destinati ai programmi di promozione. Tuttavia speriamo ancora, come ha detto in particolare il collega De Castro, che ci possa essere un piano straordinario per la promozione e misure di supporto al settore agricolo, così importante per l'economia europea.
Speaker: Patrizia TOIA (Italy — Partito Democratico)
Political group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Date: 2019-09-17
Debate: Amazon forest fires (debate)

  Patrizia Toia (S&D).   – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Amazzonia brucia e, se brucia la terra che produce il 20 % dell'ossigeno che respiriamo, brucia anche un patrimonio immenso di culture, popoli e biodiversità.
La deforestazione, così come gli incendi, sono certo causati da uomini, da leader che avallano lo sfruttamento delle risorse e delle persone, uno sfruttamento basato su un'idea vecchia e sbagliata di capitalismo, senza sostenibilità che promuova il benessere di tutti.
C'è una frase, un'espressione in lingua indigena che non so ripetere, che parla proprio del "buon vivere". Ecco, buon vivere, cioè un rapporto armonioso tra uomo e creato, e questo buon vivere noi dovremmo farlo nostro, anche nelle politiche da ripensare dell'Unione.
E io mi chiedo, perché non dobbiamo avere il coraggio di rivedere anche l'accordo del Mercosur per metterci criteri più stringenti di sostenibilità ambientale? E perché non abbiamo il coraggio di dire che non si può fare gli ambientalisti, come dice qualcuno, con le foreste degli altri, di paesi che vogliono avere una via di sviluppo?
È un problema anche nostro e penso che l'Europa dovrebbe contribuire a un piano per la riforestazione.
Speaker: Patrizia TOIA (Italy — Partito Democratico)
Political group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Date: 2024-01-15
Debate: Ozone depleting substances - Fluorinated gases regulation (joint debate - Gas emissions)

  Patrizia Toia (S&D).   – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei illustrare brevemente alcuni degli obiettivi del contributo che abbiamo dato come commissione per l'industria, sempre lavorando, così io ho lavorato, nella convinzione che le politiche di tutela ambientale che stiamo perseguendo non solo sono compatibili con la competitività, ma possono spingere anche la competitività del nostro sistema produttivo.
Il primo obiettivo è stato quello di favorire e sostenere l'innovazione nei numerosi processi in cui vengono utilizzati gli F-Gas già oggi: per esempio il settore farmaceutico e quello delle tecnologie per il freddo commerciale e industriale si sono dimostrati già fortemente innovativi e sono oggi in grado di raggiungere livelli di performance superiori anche a quelli indicati dalla Commissione nella sua originaria proposta. Soluzioni tecnologiche anche con minore impatto sono disponibili o lo saranno presto.
Il secondo punto è stato quello di lavorare per evitare strozzature di mercato, che ci sono già o si stanno profilando, e restrizioni al mercato unico e alla libera circolazione delle merci. Pensiamo che si debba allargare il campo delle alternative disponibili e delle applicazioni per evitare soluzioni monopolistiche, come già ci sono nel settore dei commutatori elettrici.
Potrei parlare anche dei pezzi di ricambio, dove noi abbiamo auspicato una maggiore cautela e attenzione perché c'è un problema di disponibilità finanziaria delle famiglie, ma chiudo dicendo che, sebbene non tutte le nostre osservazioni siano state recepite, siamo convinti che questo è un buon provvedimento e lo sosteniamo.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2023-11-22
Debate: This is Europe - Debate with the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Nikolay Denkov (debate)

  Philippe Lamberts,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Mr Prime Minister, we were born actually – Mr Prime Minister, I know that Mariya Gabriel is more attractive to you than me, because she’s your partner in government! – we were born actually six months apart. And when we were born, we were separated, you and I, by an iron curtain. And it remains to me a deep joy to see that our two countries are now part of the same Union. And it’s a Union, as you said, of choice of freedom and based on rule of law. 
And like you, and maybe you didn’t say it explicitly, but I really resent when some European politicians are comparing the European Union to the new Soviet Union or to a renewed Third Reich, where we would be submitted by force. We all chose freely to be part of that Union, and that remains a source of pride. And let no one believe that the European Union is a repetition of the past failures in Europe.
The second thing I want to say is that I totally agree with you when you say that what is happening in Ukraine is basically the defence of the values on which the European Union has been built. This is our struggle, and I must say that yes, it entails efforts from the Members of the European Union to help Ukraine, but frankly speaking, they are putting their lives on the line. We are just putting part of our wealth to help them, and I think that’s the least we can do.
The third thing where I agree with you is that yes, the European Union is a union freely chosen, but it has to be merit-based. And there again, when the merits are there, the decision should follow. Yes, Bulgaria and Romania must be part of Schengen. And for citizens this is probably, with the common currency, the most emblematic meaning of what it means to be part of the European Union. So full support for that.
I will finish with the values you mentioned a lot, the conservative and liberal values. And then the green in me said, ‘hang on one second, yes, the conservatives and the liberals have brought a lot to Europe, but I think that there’s more to European political diversity and values diversity than just those two families’. I think that the left has brought these values of social justice, and that lies at the heart of the European Union.
And I would finish with the thing that was most absent from your speech. Well, you know, if you and I and our kids and grandkids will live in the 21st century and beyond, well, it will be because we have been able to protect this planet as our common home. And indeed that lies as well at the heart of the values of the European Union, making sure that indeed, the planet on which we live will be welcoming us for generations to come.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2023-09-13
Debate: State of the Union (debate)

  Philippe Lamberts,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I think we share your idea that indeed, we need to deepen and to widen the European Union, but we cannot use that as an excuse to keep people waiting longer than needed. It has to be merit-based, but only merit-based. Now, the thing is, if Ukraine would join today, all 27 Member States except one would be net contributors to the EU budget. I hope that this will make Member States realise that we need the European Union to be funded by its own resources and I hope it will dawn upon them that that’s the only way to keep it going. And, well, we can do that without treaty revision, you know, and I will quote Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: when there’s the will, there’s a way.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2023-07-11
Debate: Nature restoration (debate)

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE),  blue-card question. – Mr Torvalds, you know I respect you a lot. You mentioned Finland. The nature of Finland is not being destroyed. The entire climate strategy [speaks off mic] Okay. What you mean is that, basically, Finland does not have the same problem as the Netherlands, I agree, it’s a different country, but the entire climate strategy of your country is predicated on your forests absorbing 20 million tons of carbon every year. And the way they are exploited today means that they emit carbon instead of absorbing it. You have to solve this.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2023-06-13
Debate: This is Europe - Debate with the President of Cyprus, Nikos Christodoulides (debate)

  Philippe Lamberts,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I’d like to welcome President Christodoulides to the European Parliament. I really appreciate these opportunities that we have to debate on the future of Europe with members of the European Council, because I’m one who believes that Parliament and Council have to work closely together. That’s the only way to achieve success here. 
Cyprus enjoys a privilege that actually no other Member State has and that is to have parts of its territory militarily occupied. And it is not a privilege, it is really a plague. And there I must commend your efforts and your determination. You deserve the solidarity and the engagement of the European Union to achieve a peaceful reunification of the country under international law – you have the full support of the Greens/EFA Group in order to achieve this. 
There is a second point where I do believe Cyprus needs the solidarity and engagement of the European Union and thus indeed on asylum and migration. Yes, countries such as yours really carry a more than proportionate part of the effort of welcoming people. And indeed we cannot let countries at the borders, and especially the southern borders of Europe, alone in that. 
But, frankly speaking, the asylum and migration pact that is currently being discussed, in our view, is not the kind of solidarity and engagement that you need, because yes, Manfred, I agree that not everyone has the right to live in Europe. No, we cannot welcome the entire humanity here. But Europe has also a responsibility towards asylum seekers, but also in the causes that force people to migrate. And there I believe that Europe can do more. We cannot be just a fortress against the rest of the world. 
Now there two aspects where I would like to see engagement and solidarity from Cyprus towards the rest of the European Union. The first is, you know, this music of dirty money hovering around Cyprus, these golden passports granted to – guess who – Russian oligarchs. We need to root that out. No, EU’s citizenship is not for sale. And making friends with such oligarchs, well, you look what the Russian regime is capable of, I would say Cyprus should know better and really fight against that kind of dirty money. 
Finally, that’s a green transition. And yes, I heard you praising the opportunities for the green transition, but I also heard you a lot speaking about oil and gas. And, frankly speaking, in 2023, oil and gas cannot play a crucial role in the transition. We need really to embrace the green transition, not just as a necessity but as an economic opportunity for all of us. So we count on you for that.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2023-05-31
Debate: Order of business

  Philippe Lamberts,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, I think it’s a very good thing that this Parliament has tackled the issue of foreign interference and disinformation seriously. We already adopted one report on it, there is a second one coming, and as we could see a few minutes ago, these issues are sensitive issues, not easy ones to deal with because, of course, they put in tension different aspects of democracy in terms of freedom of speech, but also restrictions that can be applied to them. And so we cannot just go about voting on such an important text without giving the possibility of the real sovereign – that is the plenary of this assembly – to discuss potential amendments to make this text better.
So my plea to you is that, yes, we have the debate on the text today – well, in this session, I don’t know if it’s today or tomorrow – and we vote the report in the June session allowing for this assembly to table and discuss amendments to make it better.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2023-02-13
Debate: Order of business

  Philippe Lamberts,  au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la mise sur pied d’une autorité éthique indépendante au niveau des institutions européennes prédate, de beaucoup, le scandale qui nous occupe depuis le mois de décembre, puisqu’elle faisait partie du programme de travail de la présidente de la Commission européenne.
Comme ce Parlement n’a pas le droit d’initiative législative, il faudrait que la Commission s’active un peu. Or, on constate que, malgré le scandale, on attend toujours la proposition. Je pense qu’il est important que ce Parlement fasse entendre, par un peu plus qu’un débat, sa voix sur ce sujet et – si vous me passez l’expression – botte quelque peu le popotin de la Commission pour que les choses avancent. C’est le but de cette résolution que nous vous proposons.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2023-01-16
Debate: Order of business

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE).   – Madame la Présidente, si je peux, je voudrais rappeler au collègue Garraud que cette commission figure dans la résolution votée par ce Parlement au mois de décembre. Je lui rappelle cette bonne lecture, et je lui rappellerai aussi que la manière dont on peut établir ici, au Parlement européen, une commission d’enquête n’est pas par une résolution du Parlement, mais bien par une procédure qui est fixée, de proposition d’un mandat et de collecte de signatures, ce qui permet à la plénière de se prononcer.
Je pense que ce à quoi vous vous livrez, Monsieur Garraud, pour l’instant, relève plus de la gesticulation que du travail sérieux de parlementaire.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2022-10-18
Debate: Commission Work Programme 2023 (debate)

  Philippe Lamberts,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, really striking to see how much interest a debate on the Commission work programme for 2023 elicits here in this House. I’d like to spend my two and a half minutes talking to my friends of the European People’s Party, arguably the biggest group in this Parliament.
Let me just tell you a story. Forty years ago, the European car industry convinced the European Union not to regulate them. They promised: ‘We are going to reduce emissions, improve our product and all the rest of it. Trust us. Don’t regulate us’. And they succeeded.
Now, when they failed to deliver, the European Union started regulating them and putting them emission targets. And then they fought tooth and nail against really ambitious targets. When that failed, then they started fighting to make sure that the measurements – the way we would measure the emissions – would be totally removed from reality. They succeeded. But of course, when the European Union reconsidered and started measuring real emissions, then they started cheating.
What is the net result of that? Well, the world champions of the electric cars are Tesla (US), Build Your Dreams (Chinese). That is the net result of such a strategy. And the European People’s Party was aiding and abetting the strategy of the European car industry, not least Angela Merkel, who even destroyed a trilogue deal just to weaken the objectives.
Now the EPP does it again, targeting the REACH regulation. And of course in the name of moratorium, one in, one out, because all this, you know, is a burden on our companies. A burden? Are you serious? We are talking about keeping this planet liveable for humanity. You call that a burden or the hobbyhorse of the Greens? It is about life and death – right? – and also about leadership, industrial leadership. And your calls have been partly heard.
Maroš, I regret to say that, because indeed the European Commission delayed by three quarters the revision of the landmark Chemicals Regulation of the European Union, whereas actually this text is almost ripe. Don’t do this. I mean, don’t listen to the, not the sirens, but the cries of the European People’s Party. By the way – when I have to judge as to their presence – they do not carry a lot of weight. Ignore them.
I mean, yes, I know you put that on the fourth quarter, but there’s no legal obligation for the Commission not to be earlier if you already do it. And so at least this Parliament will be able to adopt it in the first reading before the end of the term.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2022-09-12
Debate: Order of business

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE).   – Madame la Présidente, je m’étonne un peu de la demande du groupe ID, parce que le groupe ID n’a pas fait état de cette demande en conférence des présidents, qui est le lieu où se discute l’ordre du jour. Loin de moi la volonté d’éliminer l’idée que c’est la plénière qui est souveraine, mais je ne vois pas l’élément neuf qui justifie la mise à l’ordre du jour de ce point-là au lieu de – parce que c’est bien au lieu de – ce point qui a été souligné, à savoir l’espionnage de dirigeants de l’opposition ou de journalistes par un gouvernement de l’Union. Sans me prononcer sur le bien-fondé de la demande de M. Garraud, je pense que si c’est si important, eh bien que son chef de groupe vienne avec cette demande à la conférence des présidents et nous statuerons là-dessus.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2022-06-22
Debate: Order of business

  Philippe Lamberts,  au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais au nom du groupe des Verts – et je sais que c’est soutenu assez largement dans cette maison – vous proposer un échange, c’est-à-dire remplacer le débat qui est prévu demain à 9 h sur «les relations du gouvernement et du réseau diplomatique russes avec des partis de l'extrême droite et de l'extrême gauche européenne dans le contexte de la guerre» par des déclarations du Conseil et de la Commission sur les vetos nationaux en matière de taxation des multinationales, et donc la mise en danger de l’accord global de l’OCDE pour lequel l’Union européenne est de plus en plus ridicule, dans la mesure où après un État, c’est un autre État qui met son veto pour des raisons qui n’ont rien à voir avec la substance, mais pour simplement bloquer le fonctionnement de l’Union. Donc, j’aimerais bien que nous débattions de ceci au Parlement en plénière demain matin à 9 h.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2022-06-22
Debate: Voting time

  Philippe Lamberts,  au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais vous dire que vous avez exercé une de vos prérogatives, c’est-à-dire le recours à l’article 183 pour changer l’ordre normal des votes sur le texte sur le marché de quotas d’émissions en Europe. C’est certes votre prérogative, mais normalement on vote en commençant par la proposition la plus ambitieuse et puis on recule jusqu’à ce qu’on trouve une solution qui recueille une majorité.
Je ne peux pas contester la légalité de ce que vous avez fait. Par contre, après que nous nous soyons parlé hier soir, j’ai bien lu votre message et là j’ai un problème. En effet, l’argument principal que vous utilisez consiste à dire: il y a trois groupes politiques qui représentent une majorité qui me disent qu’ils ont un accord – d’abord, le premier moyen de savoir qu’il y a une majorité, c’est de procéder au vote –, mais surtout, si ceci est considéré comme un argument recevable, alors je crains fort que la plupart des amendements des groupes qui ne font pas partie de la majorité von der Leyen ne seront plus jamais votés dans cette Assemblée, puisque l’argument que vous avez utilisé pour justifier le recours à l’article 183 est un argument qui peut être appliqué à peu près à tous les textes législatifs de cette maison.
Et je ne le dis pas parce que je suis dépité, parce que nous allons voter contre. Au contraire, je peux déjà vous annoncer que mon groupe votera pour le compromis, parce que nous pensons que c’est un bien meilleur compromis que celui qu’on avait atteint il y a deux semaines. Mais quant à la procédure, nous avons un véritable problème, parce que si ceci devient la règle générale, alors vous privez en fait les groupes politiques – passez-moi l’expression – minoritaires, de tout réel droit d’expression politique dans cette maison.
Speaker: Philippe LAMBERTS (Belgium — Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2022-06-22
Debate: Voting time

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE).   – Madame la Présidente, merci de me donner la parole, parce que j’ai été pris à partie par mon collègue Manfred Weber et je veux lui répondre. 
Monsieur Weber, je n’ai jamais dit ni pensé, ni impliqué qu’un des 705 membres de cette Assemblée avait moins de droits à s’exprimer, ou moins de responsabilités à s’exprimer que n’importe quel autre. Nous sommes tous élus de manière égale par les citoyens européens. La seule chose que j’ai dite, Monsieur Weber, c’est que si d’emblée, au début des discussions sur le paquet «Ajustement à l’objectif 55», il y avait eu une volonté de discuter entre les quatre groupes – qui étaient d’ailleurs prêts à soutenir votre candidature au début de cette législature à la tête de la Commission; le PPE, les sociaux-démocrates, les libéraux et nous –, si d’emblée nous avions travaillé dans cette configuration-là, nous serions arrivés quinze jours plus tôt au résultat que vous et moi allons observer dans quelques minutes. C’est tout ce que j’ai dit! 
Et qu’on ne me fasse pas croire que pour les Verts, il y a des députés plus égaux que d’autres. Il y a des députés avec lesquels nous ne sommes pas d’accord. Ça, c’est autre chose. Mais ils sont tous égaux, tous autant qu’ils sont – Monsieur Zanni, Monsieur Legutko, je ne suis pas d’accord avec leurs idées, mais ils sont députés, tout comme moi.