kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
ccps have already been identified by the financial stability board and cpss iosco as a possible new source of systemic risk.
madam president this report on recovery and resolution of non bank financial institutions was written to look at both the systemic weaknesses that the recent financial crisis has highlighted in our market infrastructure and to assess the possible unintended consequences of the regulatory changes that have been implemented post the crisis.
however if client assets were to be involved by variation haircut margin or any other tool to disseminate losses more broadly this could only be done under the auspices of resolution authorities.
yet the level of interconnectedness of our entire financial system has long been identified as a future weakness in the financial markets as a whole.
this report emphasises that day to day operations should continue to create the right incentive structures for good governance of ccps so that banks as clearing members are still highly incentivised to participate in auctions so that ccps themselves are not encouraged to clear products for which they cannot appropriately manage the risk and indeed that end users of these clearing members the clients and investors are not exposed to more risk than they can understand or absorb.
we have not yet seen what happens when a piece of critical market infrastructure collapses and i hope we do not see this anytime soon.
if a ccp's management has the option of using client assets before exhausting its own capital and utilising its own shareholder money then there is no incentive for good governance to balance out their profit incentive.
there are issues here.
my concerns with csds are slightly different but again emerge from regulatory concerns.
indeed client assets should not be involved in recovery only in resolution.
we have seen what happens when one bank goes down.
however in the event of a failure we need to have in place a legally sound framework for ccps should they themselves have recovery plans and what powers do supervisory authorities need to have to intervene in their operations?
this report focuses on that scenario looking in particular at the possible failure of central clearing houses and settlement systems so called csds and calling for further study of infrastructure risk in other sectoral areas such as insurance and asset management.
it is clear that should a counterparty fail or some operational failure cause the ccp to run out of margin it should have the default waterfall to protect its members and the system users.
while the work on the recovery and resolution of banks has undergone a lot of international work less has been done to improve the stability of our critical market infrastructure.
the macroprudential tools for supervision that are provided for in emir should however provide the necessary safeguards to ensure that ccps really do bring stability and greater transparency to the financial markets.
so based on our own consultations and the international work underway under the aegis of the financial stability board we agree that the priority in this area should be to develop appropriate tools for the recovery and resolution of central counterparties.
regarding the other institutions mentioned in the report we agree likewise on the need to focus efforts on implementing the stronger prudential requirements currently being finalised at eu level the solvency ii regulation on central security depositories and to roll out appropriate proposals in due course for their recovery and resolution taking account of the findings of the ongoing international work.
it is true that the regulatory framework in this area is in line with the international commitments undertaken at g twenty level to improve the functioning of financial markets and to avoid taxpayers having to bear the cost of the failure of a financial institution.
in view of their central role the continuity of the services provided by ccps should be safeguarded but this should not be done in a way which distorts incentives for the users of ccps or gives rise to moral hazards.
the commission takes note of these and other issues raised in the report and will carefully consider them when preparing its policy response in this area.
we appreciate the consideration the report gives to some of the key questions which a regulatory framework for ccp recovery and resolution will need to address for example mechanisms to allocate potential losses which exceed existing requirements or contractual arrangements should be transparent and effective.
we welcome the contribution this report makes to this important debate.
the coordinated annual review on defence should be a member states driven mechanism.
these are very important initiatives that also show the added value of the european union to enhance the effectiveness and the performance of our defence sector.
i know that high representative mogherini would like to underline at the very beginning that she attaches critical importance to working together with the european parliament on defence issues as natural allies in this effort.
but let us be clear europeans have to do this for themselves.
based on member states' guidance a set of concrete modalities will be prepared.
yet the european union has never deployed a battle group despite the fact that it could have been useful on several occasions.
conclusions reached on the eugs implementation define common strategic priorities and a common vision in security and defence and has set out how csdp as part of wider eu efforts can contribute to tackling today's and tomorrow's multifaceted security challenges
on defence cooperation the european external action service also has a clear mandate from the european council to strengthen defence cooperation.
the twenty eight member states for example have one hundred and fifty four weapons systems in use.
the european defence agency is working hard to strengthen defence cooperation and the commission is also mobilising its instruments. it is clear that defence capabilities will remain member state owned.
the high representative is pleased to report that despite very tight timelines significant progress has been made since december.
twenty seven moreover around eighty of defence investment in europe is still spent on a national basis.
permanent structured cooperation can help develop defence capabilities but also to pool and share existing military assets so that we can make more efficient use of them in our operations.
the report also highlights the importance of providing appropriate equipment to the forces that the eu trains.
on concrete issues.
this is about protecting our citizens.
these projects need to be ambitious and support the overarching aim of preparing the most demanding missions.
the council conclusions adopted served as the first progress report to the march european council according to the tasking received in december last year.
permanent structured cooperation is about enabling those member states who are willing to undertake more binding commitments towards one another to do so. countries wishing to be part of it will need to make concrete commitments and join concrete cooperation projects.
on military planning and conduct capability the foreign affairs council last week agreed to establish a permanent military planning and conduct capability for the european union's non executive military missions.
the main current efforts to deepen defence cooperation in developing capabilities are centred on the coordinated annual review on defence permanent structured cooperation as well as the european defence action plan.
on the european defence action plan it proposes actions to support member states' efforts in delivering capabilities through greater cooperation and fostering a strong competitive and innovative european defence industrial base including by setting up a european defence fund.
as you know on six march high representative mogherini presented the progress achieved in the security and defence implementation of the eugs to the foreign affairs council.
at present there are three such missions in mali central african republic and somalia which are currently only led by headquarters in the field.
while it is open to all member states and maximum inclusiveness is pursued there is no automaticity or a free ride.
on. the capacity building and support of security and development a proactive approach is being promoted to identify concrete projects while supporting a positive outcome on the legislative process including the european parliament.
in the report reference is also made to the costs of non european defence.
on nine march the heads of state and government welcomed the work done and asked to continue with even greater determination and speed.
member states will work on the common commitments as well as the projects and initiatives they can provide to the permanent structured cooperation.
progress in this field through eu instruments will also benefit nato as there will be a single set of forces.
ambitions need to be underpinned by sufficient resources both nationally and at eu level.
it is equally important to make more effective use of the defence budgets by reducing fragmentations.
this work is even more important at a time when expectations and questions are raised more or less openly inside the european union as well as outside about the eu's commitment and ability to act as a security provider. there is no better answer to such expectations and questions than real tangible progress
it will contribute to the increased transparency of national defence plans and help make cooperation the norm.
and protect european citizens.
it is important to note as well that any success will have an impact on transatlantic burden sharing.
the council has also been tasked with further work on the permanent structured cooperation an important tool also highlighted in your report.
this will be referred back to council in may.
the report addresses critical issues that you have been working on during the implementation of the security and defence aspects of the eu global strategy the.
as we squander billions of euros by maintaining parallel structures which weighs upon our efficiency european added value is evident through more cost effective capacities more interoperability and more common spending on research.
we need to join forces and to become more flexible to ensure the security of our union.
i firmly believe no european country can address these challenges alone and to overcome national prerogatives and double structures that impede the efficiency of eu security and defence policy we have to be more flexible.
therefore i urge our member states now to make full use of the legal instruments provided by the treaty of lisbon in this field.
it is clear enough that the private sector is generally risk averse where blue sky research is concerned but the state can transform this precisely because the state can focus on the long term rather than on short run profitability.
the developments of the last few years tell us why we need to change the ongoing crisis in the middle east terrorism the rule of russia and more recently the demand by washington that europe must play a significantly more active role in its own defence are the key factors in this respect. yet the possible defence structures of the european union are already in place
major cost benefits can be expected from joint military procurement.
this article is fairly clear in mentioning operational capacity at the european level common defence and an undertaking by member states progressively to improve their military capabilities. it could not be clearer.
so the scope for change is considerable. to the above one can usefully add improvement in security and counterterrorism cooperation a sensitive area of course.
the report we are discussing confirms our misgivings.
you seem to think it's both.
nato harnesses the overwhelming military power of the united states to that of the european nations for their mutual defence and we have the vital article five guarantee.
i mean it's all smoke and mirrors.
or national forces under national control?
the euro federalists seem to inhabit a curious bleak and empty space where no one else is doing anything to address the security challenges that we all face and where their answer to every problem is more eu.
as has been pointed out the defence of our democracies against the threat of aggression is carried out by nato.
mr president different reasons have given us the possibility to undertake more defence cooperation between the european countries.
we need to work together with nato complement it where possible and not see nato as a reason for not having a stronger european defence policy. the member states that are ready to undertake more binding commitments would set up a permanent structured cooperation so that it would be possible to establish multinational forces.
the eu must create a system that would coordinate the fast movement of defence forces personnel and equipment when the solidarity clause is invoked.
we have to use this opportunity to be able to defend europe and increase its security.
this idea of a common defence identity is pure folly.
most governments do not honour their commitment to spend two of gdp on defence and the us has grown tired of bearing a disproportionate burden.
by far the best thing would be to re engage with nato meet your defence spending pledges and allow britain to be a bridge to a us administration that has certainly had some tough things to say of late.
in fact even as someone who has campaigned vigorously for britain to leave the european union i have still acknowledged that for a time after the second world war having france and germany engaged in a joint political project was indeed a useful support to nato in maintaining peace.
you do not have sufficient social solidarity nor commonality of interest to support the financial bailouts necessitated by the euro let alone the shedding of blood in military combat under an eu cap badge.
madam president it is often claimed in this chamber that the eu has secured peace in europe since the second world war and it is often pointed out from these benches that in fact it is nato that has preserved peace and freedom.
stick with the entity that has stood the test of time.
so i am afraid the opportunists of brussels are seeking to acquire another element of nationhood an eu army to add to the flag the parliament the anthem and the currency.
but i would hope everyone in this chamber would equally acknowledge that in cold hard terms of armies and military hardware and nuclear deterrence it was indeed nato that shielded western europe from the threat of external attack. so what a shame that now in the second decade of the twenty first century nato seems to be out of fashion with european politicians.
i appreciate the work of the rapporteurs but also the contribution of the house.
security and defence will remain high on the eu's political agenda in the coming weeks and months and the european council asked to maintain the momentum and to continue the work with determination and speed.
more than ever it is imperative that europeans take more responsibility for their own security and therefore member states together with the help of institutions will continue to work hard to fulfil these ambitions and take forward the actions needed to make the european union stronger more effective and ultimately safer.
over the last two years the european union has sought gradually to engage with belarus and to encourage further reforms to build on the i have to say modest measures taken so far.
and the council also took two further decisions to encourage belarus to stay on the path of reforms.
the european union is ready to work closely with minsk and support its political and economic development.
these steps provide an incentive for moves towards democracy in belarus which i am confident will be well understood on the one hand by the government but on the other hand particularly by the people.
however if belarus wishes to come closer to the eu it is clear it must show this through its actions.
the commission is supporting the idea of the eib including belarus in the bank's new mandate.
reform of the electoral legislation in line with osce odihr recommendations is sorely needed.
in the meantime we have shown our goodwill in a number of important ways.
but naturally the final decision on the negotiation directives will lie with the council.
in addition the commission is prepared to increase the allocations of financial assistance to belarus for the period of.
restrictive measures notably the visa ban and the assets freeze till october two thousand and ten given the lack of significant progress on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
we have signalled clearly that we would like to see belarus take its place as a fully fledged participant in the european neighbourhood policy and that the bilateral track of the eastern partnership can be opened to belarus if it shows through sustained action
we call for improved conditions for ngos civil society and human rights activists.
my services are preparing recommendations with a view to negotiating directives on visa facilitation and readmission agreements.
we launched a dialogue on human rights issues in june. two thousand and nine the commission is engaged in a growing number of technical dialogues with belarus on issues of mutual interest. last month for instance the external relations council decided to extend existing
its wish to make irreversible steps towards democratic reform.
all these steps could play their part in accelerating the development of a closer partnership between belarus and the european union.
the liberty of the press freedom of speech and of assembly should be permitted and become the norm. the european union also encourages belarus to abolish or declare a moratorium on the death penalty.
a number of eu high level visits to belarus this year helped strengthen political exchanges.
visa facilitation is a priority for the belarusian people and i would like to see more belarusians visiting the european union travelling freely studying and doing business.
two thousand and ten two thousand and thirteen we have proposed a package of macro financial assistance worth eur two hundred million for which we are seeking the approval of parliament.
there must be an end to political prisoners and politically motivated prosecutions.
i am convinced that the most productive approach to belarus will be one based on pragmatism. our engagement with that country needs to reflect positive steps by belarus itself but we also have to show at least some flexibility.
however to encourage democratic progress the council also extended the suspension of the restrictive measures.
i wish to thank you for a constructive and forward looking debate.
it is participating constructively at deputy minister level in the four multilateral forums democracy and governance economic integration energy security and people to people contacts.
this is what i mean by pragmatism.
this would entail the development of our relationship through the bilateral track of the eap the launching of a thorough political and economic dialogue as well as enhanced sectoral cooperation.
in the commission we continue to believe that the ratification of the pca will be a useful step forward but clearly we will continue to use this as an incentive lever to encourage further moves on the belarusian side.
should there be significant steps from the belarusian leadership in terms of democratisation the eu would be prepared to see belarus as a full member of the eastern partnership.
progressive eu engagement with belarus needs to reflect positive steps by belarus itself but we also need to show flexibility.
i sincerely hope that in two thousand and ten we will be in a position to engage gradually and intelligently with belarus and offer the belarusian people a vision and tangible benefits of a close relationship with the eu.
in the meantime the eu is and will be urging belarus to take further irreversible steps towards democratic standards without which our relationship cannot develop to its full potential.
a significant move in showing belarus' commitment to shared values would be the immediate introduction of a moratorium on the death penalty and its subsequent abolition as a crucial step forward on its path to council of europe membership.
fourthly and lastly the commission has started working on the implementation of the november two thousand and nine gaerc conclusions and will come back to the council of eu ministers with proposals as soon as possible.
first the eu is ready to work closely with minsk and support its political and economic development and should there be significant positive steps from the belarusian leadership we would be prepared to see belarus as a full member of the eastern partnership.
in the meantime belarus was invited in may two thousand and nine to join the multilateral dimension of the eap.
the commission believes that the most productive approach to belarus will be one based on pragmatism.
moreover the commission has carried out communication actions in the wake of the tenth international day against the death penalty.
mr president commissioner honourable members i think it is extremely valuable that we have such strong support among all the european institutions for the approach towards belarus.
some countries here have close and historic relations with the people there so we must do our utmost to support the development towards democracy human rights the rule of law and market economy.
there was a conference just a few weeks ago in brussels with civil society.
it shows that we are truly committed we stuck out our hands.
we can show mr lukashenko and the belarus regime that if you move towards democracy if you move towards respecting international values there is another way for you.
there is a way towards european integration;
there is a way towards engagement with the european union towards visa facilitation and deepening of the eastern partnership.
now it is up to them to respond.
i therefore do agree that the targeted sanctions need to be eventually lifted and a pca eventually ratified.
i think that we should also refer to that.
with youth unemployment at its highest rate throughout the eu it is vital that policies are put in place across member states to counteract these ever increasing statistics.
one eight million there are an estimated three hundred and seventy four zero women economically active in northern ireland today;
although youth unemployment in my own constituency is at an historic high i am pleased to say that out of a small population of.
initiatives such as women into business ni aim to tap into this potential and increase the number of women in northern ireland who contribute positively to the economy and society as a whole.
madam president in today's economic climate it is proving extremely difficult for young men and women alike to enter the labour market.
the report also rightly highlights the potential of renewed investment in social housing in job creation and in boosting the construction industry which has been hugely impacted upon by the economic crisis.
i particularly welcome the focus on the benefit of social housing to the most vulnerable in our society the elderly the victims of domestic violence and in my own constituency the social housing particularly geared for those who suffer from dementia.
despite all of these positive elements i find myself unable to support the report because it breaches the principle of subsidiarity.
i also welcome the emphasis on energy efficiency.
two thousand and twenty occupational mobility is a very practical requirement which highlights the need to adapt education and training systems more effectively to the new labour market requirements to strengthen lifelong learning and the acquisition of skills and to improve the system of recognition of professional qualifications.
i am glad that this is a national competence and it should stay a national competence.
that is not affordable and we cannot provide this any longer.