misclassified/meps_speeches_with_translation.csv huggingface dataset:
Speaker: Guy VERHOFSTADT (Belgium — Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten)
Political group: Renew Europe Group
Date: 2020-01-15
Debate: European Parliament's position on the Conference on the Future of Europe (debate)

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew).   – Madam President, let’s give a common conclusion here. That is that, for the first time – nearly 20 years, I think, after the start of the Convention, the three institutions agree again on the necessity for an in-depth reform of the European Union. This is already an important fact because it is 20 years after the start of the previous Convention and, for the first time, these three institutions say, ‘OK, an in—depth reform of the Union is absolutely needed’. I will not contradict or have a debate with Mr Legutko because, in the meanwhile, he is no longer here in the plenary.
The reason why we want this Conference is because there are problems that we recognise in the European Union. When we have Brexit, a big country that is leaving the European Union, it’s difficult to say, ‘Oh, fantastic, we work well’. No, it’s a problem. We have a problem when a big country is leaving the Union and when, five years after the start of the migration crisis, we still don’t have a reform of the Dublin Regulation. We have a problem in the European Union when, ten years after the outbreak of the financial crisis, we still do not have a banking union in the European Union. We have a problem. And when Russians and Americans are deciding everything in our neighbourhood – in Syria and in Libya and in Ukraine – well, we have a problem. In fact, the reality is that, on the international stage, we are mocked by Putin, we are blackmailed by Erdoğan, we are bullied by Trump, and mostly we are ignored by the Chinese Government.
That’s the reason why we want to reform Europe; not because we say ‘we are Europeans and everything is going well’, and it’s over. No, tomorrow it will be a different world tomorrow, dominated by what I call empires, like China, like India, like Russia, like America. That doesn’t mean that we have to become an empire – on the contrary – but we want to defend a Europe in which our children and grandchildren can survive in this new world, which is not the case today. 
We have to do it with a new method, not like in the Convention. In the Convention it went from the top down and at the top, with Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the top was something very impressive and present. We have to do exactly the opposite, not in contradiction, but from the bottom up – going up from the citizens so that we can create. After the generation of Monnet and Schuman and after the generation of Kohl and Mitterrand, we need a third movement, a third movement with, I would say, the vision of the first and with the courage of the second generation. 
(Applause)
(The speaker agreed to take two blue-card questions under Rule 171(8))
Speaker: Guy VERHOFSTADT (Belgium — Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten)
Political group: Renew Europe Group
Date: 2020-01-15
Debate: European Parliament's position on the Conference on the Future of Europe (debate)

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew),  blue-card answer. – It seems to be a good idea to have a democratic process during this. Let’s consult all the citizens in Europe like we did during the elections. That seems to me the best thing to do. Maybe we can ask Mr Sassoli to organise that procedure and maybe I’m a candidate to do that. 
To our British friends, I want to say on Nord Stream – that is a good point that has been made, but Nord Stream is proof of what? It is proof of a lack of European Union, it is proof of the fact that a European energy community does not exist in Europe. So if really those people, like those in the Brexit Party, are anxious about Nord Stream, well, they should create the energy community we desperately need and as fast as possible, colleagues.
Speaker: Guy VERHOFSTADT (Belgium — Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten)
Political group: Renew Europe Group
Date: 2020-01-14
Debate: Implementing and monitoring the provisions on citizens’ rights in the Withdrawal Agreement (debate)

  Guy Verhofstadt,  on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, the first thing that I want to do is to thank the President of the Commission, Ms von der Leyen, and also Michel Barnier, naturally, for their strong and continued support on citizens’ rights.
I hope that this House, when we vote – I think it’s tomorrow we vote – on this resolution gives it a huge majority, a huge majority that gives us a mandate for the final discussions with the UK authorities, which will happen on Thursday. I have been invited by the Secretary of State, Mr Barclay, and by the new Minister for European Affairs, Mr Pincher. It’s important that this resolution has massive support so that it gives us strength on Thursday and Friday because there are still concerns that need to be addressed. If they are not addressed now, before the end of the month, they will be on the table before the end of the year. I cannot imagine that the European Parliament will agree, for example, on the free-trade agreement (FTA) without solving the problems and the concerns of the EU citizens and the UK citizens, including freedom of movement. 
These concerns have already been mentioned by my two colleagues. First of all, the automatic recognition of citizens’ rights. There is a Tory Government and Tory governments always say that they want less bureaucracy. Well, OK, let’s make less bureaucracy and the best way to do it is automatic recognition so that you don’t need all this. The second is a physical document. Why is it necessary? The UK authorities are telling us that, ‘yes, but it’s not necessary – they have an email’. But can you imagine a case where a woman goes to see her parents on the continent, comes back and at the border they ask, ‘where is your email?’ – ‘I don’t have my email, there is no energy anymore in my battery’ – or maybe she deleted the mail, so she cannot enter the UK. We need a physical document. In a normal world, you have a document. That’s the second concern. 
The third concern is the Independent Monitoring Authority. My proposal is simple: why not put a few representatives of the 3million organisation in the Independent Monitoring Authority? Then we are sure that both sides are there, so it solves the problem. These things need to be addressed and I hope that they will be on Thursday and Friday. 
Maybe, to finish on a lighter note, I can ask Prime Minister Johnson for a little bit of flexibility. Maybe he can follow the Queen’s example – because yesterday the Queen gave Harry and Meghan a transition period to leave, so maybe some flexibility on Mr Johnson’s side could also be very useful.
(Applause)
Speaker: Guy VERHOFSTADT (Belgium — Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten)
Political group: Renew Europe Group
Date: 2019-12-18
Debate: Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 12 and 13 December 2019 (debate)

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew).   – Madam President, the first thing I want to say to Mr Annemans is that what he has said is a scandal. I’m proud that a Belgian is President of the European Council, instead of all the stupid things you have said. And if you don’t know, dear colleagues: if there is a minority in Belgium, it is the separatist of Mr Annemans who is the minority in Belgium.
To Mr Farage and his troops, I want to say that they make a lot of noise for having zero seats in the British elections. Everybody said here: ‘we will miss our British colleagues of the Lib Dems, of Labour’. Well, I will not miss the Brexiteers going out, I can tell you. I will not miss them. Saying that, dear colleagues, there is a consent to be given by this Parliament. And I know that everybody says and thinks: ‘oh, this consent will be given automatically, because it’s like that’. We have foreseen that this consent procedure will end in plenary on 29 January, but in the meanwhile, there is a problem to be solved. I have received, since the elections in Britain, hundreds and hundreds of letters and emails of British citizens living in Europe, panicking about their status. I have received hundreds of mails of EU citizens living in Britain panicking about their status. And I think we need to solve that first, before we give our consent on this Brexit treaty. Why? Neither citizens, British or Europeans alike, can be the victims of this (in my opinion) not very intelligent choice of Brexit. And I want to appeal to the Prime Minister of Britain, to Boris Johnson, to be generous in his victory and to give to all the European citizens – and the British citizens alike, living on the continent – the full rights as they have today: automatically, to all of them, no ifs and no buts, as he always says, to do so. I want also to tell you that more and more people are coming back to another (and I will conclude with this) issue of European associated citizenship for British citizens who want to continue to feel that they are European, and I think we have to be open to that request.
Speaker: Guy VERHOFSTADT (Belgium — Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten)
Political group: Renew Europe Group
Date: 2019-10-22
Debate: Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2019 (debate)

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew).   – Madam President, first of all, I want to say to Mr Van Orden that I am honoured that you compared me with Mr Bercow. It’s in any way better than to be compared with Mr Rees-Mogg, because Mr Bercow’s ties are more colourful. I like them more than those of Mr Rees-Mogg. 
I want to thank the Conference of Presidents that they have confirmed that the consent procedure in this House will only start after the full ratification by the side of the United Kingdom and that’s important, that was in our resolutions. I think we need to use the time between now and the consent vote to solve the last problems that still exist today which are the rights of the EU citizens that are living in the UK. There are still a number of problems to be solved. There is the vulnerable citizens – 200 000 of them who are in need of assistance. There is those who will miss the deadline, and there one of the members of the UK government has said, oh, we’re going to do deportation. Well, I can tell you this problem needs to be solved in all clarity before, that there is no deportation of these people. There is the difference between a settled status and pre-settled status. What is, in my opinion, not always clear why people are in pre-settled stages are not in settled status with full rights. And there is the Independent Monitoring Authority. It’s not clear in the withdrawal bill how independent the Independent Monitoring Authority will be and we have to be sure that it is a real Independent Monitoring Authority. So, before the House will give consent, I want to see this problem solved. We don’t want that the EU citizens become victims in another Windrush scandal in Britain. That cannot happen. 
Finally, I want to use this intervention also to say some positive things about Jean-Claude Juncker, but already he is not there and especially to Donald Tusk, I want thank him for the cooperation. We never had words with each other during these five years in the debates and I wanted to wish him all the luck in his upcoming challenges, somewhere in a big country in the East of Europe. Good luck Donald.
Speaker: Guy VERHOFSTADT (Belgium — Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten)
Political group: Renew Europe Group
Date: 2019-10-09
Debate: Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2019 (debate)

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew).   – Madam President, I want to start by responding to Ms De Lucy, who was attacking this Parliament, saying that we are undemocratic while they are here, elected here and they are not elected in the British parliament. So who is more democratic, do you think? Who is more democratic? In your own country, neither in UKIP before Brexit has one representative in the British parliament and here you have more than, I don’t know, too many representatives. You’re saying that we are not democratic. This is crazy. 
But that said, I will be less diplomatic than Mr Michel Barnier. I think that the proposal that Boris Johnson put forward exactly one week ago, was not serious at all. Not serious at all because it was, in fact, I call it a virtual proposal. It was not a real proposal. It gives a veto to the DUP in a number of issues. It is putting custom facilities, not on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, but in all the other parts of the island of Ireland that we don’t know yet. And finally, the proposal is to downgrade the political declaration and the future relationship by undercutting, in fact by making a sort of Singapore at the sea, at the North Sea – these 20 behind me like that – , but by in fact destroying the ecological, social and labour standards. I have to tell that to Mr Richard Corbett because he’s a Labour representative. I can never understand that today there are 20 or so Labour MPs thinking to vote together with the government of the UK for such a deal. That’s the contrary of all the things that Labour has always defended in the past. I hope that this is not happening. 
The real reason why this is all happening is very simple. It’s a blame-game. A blame-game against everybody, a blame-game against the Union, against Ireland, against Ms Merkel, against the British judiciary system, against Labour, against the Lib Dems, even against Mrs May. The only person who has not been blamed is Mr Johnson himself, apparently, but all the rest are the source of our problems. That is what is happening today. All those who are not playing his game are traitors or a collaborator or have surrendered. Well in my opinion, the real traitor is he or she who will risk bringing disaster upon his country, its economy and its citizens by pushing Britain out of the European Union. That’s, in my opinion, a traitor. 
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 171(8))
Speaker: Guy VERHOFSTADT (Belgium — Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten)
Political group: Renew Europe Group
Date: 2019-10-09
Debate: Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2019 (debate)

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew),  blue-card answer. – Democracy you can change your mind. And I have a small impression that, in the meanwhile, the majority of the British citizens have changed their minds.
(Shouts of ‘rubbish’ from certain parts of the Chamber)
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 171(8))
Speaker: Guy VERHOFSTADT (Belgium — Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten)
Political group: Renew Europe Group
Date: 2019-10-09
Debate: Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2019 (debate)

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew),  blue-card answer. – I can make it into a question, but I don’t think that it is in this House that we have to discuss the internal affairs of the Labour Party and the British Parliament.
(Shouting)
Speaker: Aurore LALUCQ (France — Place publique)
Political group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Date: 2023-09-13
Debate: SME Relief Package (debate)

  Aurore Lalucq (S&D).   – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Vice-présidente, chers collègues, voici donc BEFIT, le dernier texte législatif, peut-être, en matière fiscale de la Commission européenne, et on ne pourra pas dire que l’Europe a chômé ces dernières années pour pouvoir remettre plus de justice fiscale pour les Européens.
La taxation des super-profits: l’Europe; la taxation minimale des multinationales: l’Europe; la lutte contre les paradis fiscaux: l’Europe; la lutte contre les sociétés-écrans: l’Europe; la taxation des plus puissants – là où certains États membres sont plutôt lâches vis-à-vis d’eux – l’Europe encore. Malgré tout, malgré l’unanimité, on a toujours réussi à se battre et à avancer. Et j’insiste sur ce dernier point, parce que c’était une promesse, un engagement de la présidente de la Commission européenne, Madame von der Leyen, qui nous avait promis la fin de l’unanimité. Et c’était l’absent aujourd’hui de son discours. Elle a ainsi renié ses engagements, elle a fui ses responsabilités. 
On demande à la Commission européenne, et notamment à Paolo Gentiloni, qui a fait montre de courage ces dernières années, de ne pas fuir ses responsabilités et de faire un dernier acte de bravoure. Les Européens et l’Europe le méritent.
Speaker: Aurore LALUCQ (France — Place publique)
Political group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Date: 2023-07-12
Debate: Tax the rich (topical debate)

  Aurore Lalucq (S&D).   – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Secrétaire d’État, chers collègues, 67 % des Européens pensent qu’il faut taxer la fortune. Tout comme ce gauchiste, manifestement, de Philip Lane, gouverneur de la Banque centrale européenne, mais aussi les économistes Joseph Stiglitz, Gabriel Zucman, Esther Duflo, Kate Barker, ancienne de la Bank of England, qu’on a pu lire récemment, là aussi dans un tract gauchiste qui s’appelle le Financial Times. Je pourrais continuer la liste à l’infini.
Ils ont raison, car le taux d’imposition des plus riches est aujourd’hui plus bas que celui de la classe moyenne, ce qui pose des problèmes sociaux, économiques, mais aussi démocratiques. Et c’est pour cela que nous avons lancé une initiative citoyenne européenne pour la taxation des grandes fortunes, afin de financer la transition écologique.
Comment ça fonctionne? Nous faisons une proposition à la Commission européenne. La Commission européenne nous dit si elle est juridiquement recevable, nous récoltons un million de signatures. Et si ces signatures sont récoltées, alors nous devons avoir une réponse de la Commission européenne. Et c’est avec honneur et émotion que je peux vous annoncer aujourd’hui que la Commission européenne, hier, a donné son accord juridique pour pouvoir récolter ce million de signatures.
Alors, tout comme nous avons créé à l’échelle européenne la taxation minimale sur les multinationales, la taxation sur les superprofits, créons la taxation sur les grandes fortunes, chers Européens. L’Europe est à votre service et au service de la justice fiscale.
Speaker: Aurore LALUCQ (France — Place publique)
Political group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Date: 2023-07-12
Debate: Need to adopt the “Unshell” Directive on rules to prevent the misuse of shell entities for tax purposes (continuation of debate)

  Aurore Lalucq (S&D).   – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Secrétaire d’État, en janvier dernier, le Parlement a adopté, à une majorité écrasante de plus de 99 %, la directive «Unshell» visant à lutter contre les sociétés-écrans. Cela a été rappelé, ce fut une avancée majeure contre l’évasion fiscale, car ces structures permettent de dissimuler des transactions financières à des fins de fraude et de blanchiment d’argent.
Rappelons qu’au-delà des 60 milliards d’euros qu’elles coûtent annuellement aux contribuables, ces sociétés-écrans sont l’un des principaux rouages de pratiques illégales, comme le trafic d’êtres humains, d’armes ou de drogue. Il est donc tout à fait dommageable que cette directive majeure ait été bloquée purement et simplement par le Conseil, au point de ne même plus figurer à l’agenda des négociations.
Je me tourne vers vous, Monsieur le Secrétaire d’État. On a besoin que le Conseil débloque cette directive. On compte sur votre engagement et on vous fait parfaitement confiance. Et je me tourne aussi vers le commissaire Gentiloni. Cette situation pointe aussi le problème de l’unanimité pour ce genre de directive. On attend là aussi une action massive de la Commission européenne.
Speaker: Aurore LALUCQ (France — Place publique)
Political group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Date: 2023-06-14
Debate: Lessons learnt from the Pandora Papers and other revelations (debate)

  Aurore Lalucq (S&D).   – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, aujourd’hui tout se passe comme s’il y avait deux systèmes fiscaux, et donc deux systèmes démocratiques parallèles. D’un côté le citoyen lambda, la PME du coin, qui payent leurs impôts là où ils vivent et là où ils travaillent, et, de l’autre, certaines personnalités ultra-riches qui, disons-le clairement, à travers leur comportement, refusent le consentement à l’impôt et font sécession. En ayant recours à des sociétés offshore et à des paradis fiscaux, ils préfèrent mettre leur argent à côté de la grande criminalité, de la mafia et des trafiquants, plutôt qu’au côté des citoyens lambda, aussi imparfaits soient-ils. 
Pourtant, ces personnes ont de quoi payer dix fois, cent fois leurs impôts. Pourtant, ces personnes n’auraient pas à payer grand-chose, d’ailleurs, si elles étaient restées et avaient déclaré leur argent sur leur territoire. En effet, les ultrariches ne paient quasiment plus rien aujourd’hui. Pourquoi? Parce que le revenu et le capital ne sont plus assez taxés, tant et si bien qu’aujourd’hui, mieux vaut hériter que travailler.
Aussi, nous soutenons ce rapport, la taxation du capital et un impôt sur la grande fortune au niveau européen.
Speaker: Aurore LALUCQ (France — Place publique)
Political group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Date: 2023-05-10
Debate: Impact of the interest rate increase decided by the ECB on households and workers (debate)

  Aurore Lalucq (S&D).   – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la Ministre, parfois, on ne peut pas lutter contre l’inflation avec un taux d’intérêt, et il faut l’accepter. La hausse du taux d’intérêt aujourd’hui doit être questionnée pour trois raisons au moins. Premièrement, parce qu’on ne lutte pas avec un taux d’intérêt contre l’inflation importée et l’inflation énergétique. Deuxièmement, parce qu’aujourd’hui l’inflation est tirée par les superprofits, par la cupidité, l’avidité: c’est l’inflation des vendeurs, la «cupideflation» décrite parfaitement par Isabella Weber, et d’ailleurs la Banque centrale européenne est d’accord avec ce constat, il faudrait donc qu’elle se mette en cohérence. Enfin, parce que cette hausse a des conséquences sur la stabilité bancaire et financière.
S’il est évident que les banques qui se sont effondrées avaient des problèmes de gestion interne – ça on ne va pas le nier – il est évident aussi qu’à partir du moment où vous augmentez les taux d’intérêt, mécaniquement, vous dégradez les bilans bancaires parce que vous avez des moins-values latentes obligataires. La dernière chose dont on a besoin, c’est d’une crise bancaire et financière. Donc stop sur les taux d’intérêt. Et parfois, pour avoir de la stabilité des prix, il faut passer par quelque chose qui s’appelle le contrôle des prix.