kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
however my party and i cannot ignore the fact that the report agrees with the foolish concept of decarbonising europe's economy and achieving climate targets as stated in the paris agreement.
we hear a lot about china's increase of say solar power but not so much about their increasing coalfired generation.
our leadership is also clear in the mission innovation initiative gathering together twenty two countries and the eu. at the time i was introduced by the us secretary of energy as someone coming from the only country in the world that was able to run for four days straight on renewable energy alone.
we are also working closely with other global initiatives such as the breakthrough energy coalition created by bill gates which is now exploring a publicprivate collaboration with the commission and four other mission innovation members.
your assessment that funding for clean energy research and innovation will require a tremendous increase are the same as our conclusions.
there is a need for a transformation of mindset and the development of new skills.
we cannot do it alone so thank you very much and i hope to keep working together for the future.
as you know discussions on the design of fp nine are ongoing and we take note of your suggestions with regard to the budget.
to this end the commission will continue to focus on the four flagships that we decided on in the communication emobility decarbonising buildings renewables and last but not least storage.
we are focused on building and reinforcing synergies across funding instruments and stakeholders and on aligning our policies to support innovation and not hamper it.
in doing so as noted in your report coherence of eu actions is absolutely necessary.
i am also pleased to see that we are aligned on the need to provide longterm financing certainty to better support and align incentives for innovators and investors.
your report is clear public procurement can be a powerful tool to support the market uptake for clean energy innovation.
the role of the commission is to facilitate but also to take account of more interdisciplinarity and user innovation in future calls.
the legislative package you are currently negotiating with the council reflects the central role given to consumers in all aspects innovative services technology products and integration methodologies.
our views also coincide on the citizen's central role in energy innovation that you referred to.
we agree with you other international organisations agree with you and we have to fight for that.
that is european leadership.
europe is the leader and we should shout more about it. how many people are still surprised when we say that forty of the patents in renewable technologies are european?
as jerzy buzek pointed out we have too many financial instruments and in some of the seminars etc.
we have traditionally been at the forefront as commissioner moedas has pointed out but we need to do more because other areas of the world are catching up.
we also need to look at ensuring that those funds are easily available.
it is through the engagement of all that we can do it because today we cannot do it alone.
we will continue to increase the investment in clean energy but we have to do more than that.
we have to do more in terms of the way we look at innovation.
we have to create our own brand of innovation that everybody knows.
that is why we are looking at the idea of the european innovation council the idea that we have to grasp innovation that comes from different sides from the intersection of disciplines as mr zorrinho rightly said from the intersection of the physical and the digital worlds through this idea of creating innovation that comes and solves our problems in ways and
in many different places that we cannot even imagine.
secondly we have to link with the citizens link with the citizens with mission driven science with ideas that people understand with ideas that people can link to europe and that is also part of our project.
clean energy is a mission and that mission is the mission of europe;
we have to put it in words that people want to understand.
however certain amendments are not acceptable to us.
democracy and human rights are also a central theme in our negotiations on a new association agreement.
the european union has a responsibility to convey clear messages on the importance of democracy human rights and respect for the rule of law.
last year we established a new subcommittee on justice freedom security and human rights and democracy.
mr president i venture to suggest that were azerbaijan known as azeria as with georgia and armenia european citizens' concern for democratic standards there would be higher.
peaceful demonstrations in recent weeks have met with repression more common to an arab than to a european country from an eighteen year old regime which has slowly stifled hope of progress.
this country's continued participation in the european neighbourhood policy must be made conditional on democratic reforms rather than on its willingness to supply oil for the nabucco pipeline.
its elections are not fair. its people are subject to arbitrary and sometimes violent treatment by officials.
let me also join those colleagues who point out that we need to be very clear and objective when we talk to our partners in the eastern partnership countries.
i think the authorities should understand that peaceful demonstrations are a natural part of political life in any democratic country and that the pluralism of opinions and political beliefs is a fundamental part of a democratic society.
the european parliament is very concerned about the massive crackdown on freedom of expression and assembly carried out in azerbaijan following the peaceful protest against the government in march and april of this year. young people civil society activists media professionals and opposition politicians are being harassed and intimidated.
some demonstrators have been sentenced in mass trials which took place late at night and while people did not have access to a lawyer.
most of these lawyers in turn were not informed of the locations where the trials were being held.
the human rights house of azerbaijan has been closed down by order of the ministry of justice.
this climate of fear and intimidation and the breaches of human rights must end.
the azerbaijani government is losing its credibility by breaching conventions it has itself signed up to such as the council of europe and the european convention on human rights.
we want president aliyev to keep his word. europe also loses credibility if we do not act upon these breaches.
they should have real consequences for the relations between the eu and azerbaijan.
in response the osce stated that the conduct of these elections overall was not sufficient to constitute meaningful progress in the democratic development of that country.
the osce's report went on to say that freedom of expression was limited and that normal political discourse was almost impossible partly because of tight constraints on the media.
this is nothing new but it is good from time to time in this house to remind ourselves of the true nature of the aliyev regime. after all this is a country which like all eu countries enjoys membership of the council of europe and is part of our eastern eu partnership.
supposedly azerbaijan is committed to democracy the rule of law and human rights. the truth is quite different.
here is a country that has not really moved forward in terms of political rights since the break up of the soviet union. there are just too many examples of lack of freedom freedom of speech and freedom of the press which are fundamental to any properly functioning democracy as well as evidence of the torture of prisoners court cases where illegally acquired evidence is always admitted and so on.
this parliament did make a big impression with its gums in terms of using the right to be consulted on legislation.
firstly who should chair our delegation to cosac?
we have settled quite easily the role that the committees will play in this matter and there is consensus around that.
should there be a safety valve for members of the european parliament to raise the matter on the floor of this house? i have put down an amendment and others have put down similar amendments suggesting that if one tenth of the members of the european parliament reckon there is an issue of subsidiarity then that matter should be debated on the floor of the house.
it also deals with policy matters and that is why historically we have had a vice president chairing the delegation.
it also refines our role in the appointment of the european commission establishes a new relationship between the european parliament and the national parliaments and paves the way for new members of this parliament.
i am honoured but to be honest i am also slightly disappointed because this report should really be called the corbett report.
my own view is that it should be a vice president;
i think that is a sensible safety valve.
in terms of our relationship with the national parliaments we have had some disagreement in the committee on how much detail we should go into and how much the rules should prescribe that relationship.
the committee has decided that it should be the chair.
the only point that has emerged is what happens if a committee says no there is no breach of subsidiarity and the legislation should go ahead'.
ken said to me that it was true that parliament did not have a lot of teeth but if you asked any mother of a young baby you would know that you can make a big impression with your gums.
most of these issues have been dealt with as i have said without controversy.
all the major shadows and coordinators have been very supportive but there are one or two issues that we have not been able to resolve.
it is important that parliament prepares to become a generalist parliament that is to say that we have to start to do everything efficiently and expediently across the policy spectrum. a quick
treaty is quite discreet silent upon the precise form that such collaboration should take.
mr president can you explain why a vote on the brok amendment was permitted in committee and carried and yet ruled out of order in plenary?
nothing is closed from this point of view.
mr president i wish to express my concern that we have been prevented from debating the brok amendment on implementation of the members' statute.
elmar brok proposed that responsibility be transferred from the bureau which meets in private to the parliament which meets in public. i believe that our constituents have a right to know not only what we pay ourselves but also the details of the allowances and benefits that we receive.
i find it regrettable that you sir as our president think otherwise.
more disturbing is that fearful of losing a vote or perhaps fearful of having a vote at all you resort to a procedural device to prevent debate.
that is undemocratic and at a time when everyone talks about making the eu more transparent and closer to its citizens this move smacks of hypocrisy.
if the european union is to increase transparency we need to take action and not just mouth platitudes on the subject.
it is simply not acceptable to treat our constituents like mushrooms to keep them in the dark and cover them with fertiliser.
i can assure you sir that this issue will not go away and you will have to face a vote sooner or later.
i stand before you as one who has a democratic mandate a mandate similar to that held by everyone else that has been elected to this parliament.
i also stand before you as one who comes from a country or region of the united kingdom that has known much distress because of those who would seek to destroy democratic politics.
therefore i come with high expectations of how democracy will be handled in this parliament.
and yet in my first mandate as a democratically elected member of the european parliament i find that i have been excluded from coordinators' meetings that i do not have a voice on the conference of presidents.
these issues are certainly the subject of talks and i am certainly very glad to hear that you are trying to resolve these issues.
but i would urge you mr president to bring these issues to a conclusion very quickly because it is important that the democratic mandate of this parliament is respected.
we are finalising the impact assessment in order to determine the details of any actions on legislative and practical measures with the aim of legal certainty and rapid and efficient protection measures.
we need to take this very seriously aiming for sound studies with real added value.
all our proposals must be accompanied by a thorough impact assessment.
this will be put on the table of this house in may next year.
the measures which will be part of the victims package include an overarching communication the lisbonisation of the two thousand and one framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings a proposal on civil protection measures and if necessary a proposal on criminal protection
by their nature and by law some of the offences that this proposal intends to cover are civil law matters yet there is a noticeable absence of the use of article.
however i also have to express concerns regarding the legal base and scope.
i have seen at first hand the distress that physical psychological and sexual abuse can cause and the state of vulnerability of its victims.
it seems clear to me that this proposal has a criminal base only through the use of article eighty two of the treaty on the functioning of the eu.
i fully support the aims and objectives of this proposal.
eighty one whilst i do not object to eu legal cooperation i strongly believe that we need to ensure that the legislation we produce at eu level is legally sound robust and can be effectively implemented at member state level without compromising existing member state legal systems.
stalking or harassment by a relative or a former partner.
that is also why i have supported the aim of this protection from the outset and that is the reason why i am preparing the ambitious package on victims' rights to be adopted in spring.
work in order to improve the protection of victims.
that is why the commission's future victims package will build on and develop the excellent work undertaken by the spanish presidency the belgian presidency the council and of course the european parliament.
it will be put together so that when the victims package is on the table it will be comprehensive it will be complete and it will make a real difference to all victims be they women children or men although
thank you for this work.
i am ready to work on an effective and legally sound mechanism designed to help victims benefit from civil law protection measures across the european union.
it is important that it be on the agenda because we share the same objective providing protection for victims in the best possible conditions across the borders of the eu.
we were told that the european arrest warrant was about helping to fight terrorism and we all know it has gone on to be a lot more than that.
i also see these orders as being extremely difficult to enforce in the uk for we will end up in a situation whereby an order is handed down by a foreign judge in a foreign land who knows nothing about the conditions of a british town or our way of life.
we have a saying in england once bitten twice shy'.
i suggest that we shy away from the european protection order.
given that the cfr will be a longer term project we will have to make sure that the final definitions and rules of the consumer rights directive are incorporated in the section of the cfr dealing with consumer contracts. the proposal for a directive on consumer rights was preceded
for the future it will be important to ensure coherence between the cfr and the consumer rights directive.
the results of the study should be available in the third quarter
as a consequence the national law applicable to consumer contracts within the scope of the draft directive will be determined exclusively by the regulation.
to that effect i will gather consumer and business stakeholders together at a joint meeting in june two thousand and nine to clarify elements of the proposal and to further discuss the most important aspects of the proposal.
i appreciate that this interaction between the proposal and national general contract law remedies could be made clearer in the text.
ucp protects consumers collectively against questionable business practices by rogue traders the draft consumer rights directive provides consumers who conclude a contract with a trader with individual contractual rights which they can enforce before civil courts.
however i am also prepared to consider alternatives whereby elements of these national remedies could be incorporated into the proposal if such a solution were to be preferred by the council and the parliament.
the impact assessment also monetised the administrative burden that would accrue as a result of the changes proposed and compared it with the cost of compliance that traders wishing to sell to other member states have to incur as a result of the fragmentation of consumer protection rules and rome
during the initial stages of the legislative process it appeared that further evidence and more insight might be useful on consumer behaviour and preferences regarding sales remedies.
let me make it clear that before tabling the proposal the commission carried out a comparative law analysis the compendium' covering the laws of the member states transposing the consumer directives under revision. the commission is now going through the various provisions of the proposal in more detail with the member states in order to improve its understanding
my services are preparing a table which aims to illustrate the impact of the proposal on the existing levels of consumer protection across the eu.
we need this directive for the internal market of the twenty first century.
of the practical impact on national law.
i. the assessment showed that full harmonisation of the essential consumer rights would have strong positive effects on internal market integration and consumer confidence.
i intend to launch a qualitative study in the near future on this matter with a view to gathering evidence following in depth interviews with consumers and traders.
as regards the services directive and the e commerce directive the information requirement in these directives will apply in addition to those of the proposal and will also prevail in case of conflict with the proposal. finally as regards the rome i regulation the preamble to the proposal makes it clear that the proposal is without prejudice to the regulation.
under the proposal member states will be able to retain general contract law remedies for faulty goods provided that the legal requirements for the exercise of these remedies differ from the requirements which apply to the remedies regulated in the proposal.
by a thorough impact assessment.
of. two thousand and nine the commission is committed to maintaining a constructive dialogue and this is my political commitment to you with the stakeholders mostly affected by the draft directive during the legislative process.
this is a legal text;
several stakeholders and in particular consumer organisations consider this to be an important matter. however it raised serious concerns in business quarters and respondents argued that because of the complexity of the issue further careful analysis was needed. to this end the commission will carry out a study in order to determine the scope of the problem and the extent of the consumers suffering detriment as a result of digital content not being covered. i would
we want some further evidence in the impact assessment to help us analyse and demonstrate the benefits and costs of this proposal and any alternative approaches that could be put forward.
are we asking consumers to give up some of the rights they have under national law?
and if we are not asking them to surrender certain contract law rights such as the right to reject in uk and irish law then is business still not faced with twenty seven different sets of consumer rules the abolition of which was a key objective in the first place?
' their concerns are clear.
that is why tonight's oral questions identify some key issues that we would like to work with you on and that we need to make sure are addressed in order to produce a workable set of rules that benefit all stakeholders.
some members of the working group were concerned at perceived flaws in the impact assessment and want to see more evidence of the costs of legal fragmentation if we do not act.
a clarification of the relationship between the fully harmonised provisions in the directive and the general remedies available in national contract law;
they say we attach great importance to the legal clarity and quality of the proposal as well as to the need to know what consequences and changes it would bring about compared with the current situation.
during our deliberations debate and consultations with stakeholders we received numerous representations concerned about the lack of clarity and certainty in this proposal.
the committee i believe has very diligently carried out its work with a public hearing several exchanges of views a presentation suggested by mr harbour on the impact assessment and an online consultation with has received around one hundred responses from organisations across europe in just three weeks.
commissioner i know that you and your staff are fully aware that this is a controversial proposal that merits further examination in a number of areas.
we appreciate the drive to improve consumers' rights in the internal market. we also agree that there is a need to improve the functioning of the business to consumer internal market by removing barriers to cross border trade but there is also a need to reassure our consumers that they can continue to expect a high level of protection.
we have produced a working document and you will recall that the imco committee working group led by myself as chair and rapporteur made a decision not to rush this proposal without taking full consideration of all its implications in particular since it has been described as the most far reaching change in approach to consumer law in europe.
we believe there is a high degree of uncertainty about the scope and the consequences of this proposal in particular in relation to its impact on national legal orders.
we need to be clear in our final proposal.
our questions therefore focus on the details of specific areas where we would like to see further work.
if so what does the consumer get in return?
we want you to help us and we will work with you to ensure that we support a dialogue between stakeholders on what measures are necessary to bring mutual practical benefits for business and consumers alike.
a clarification of the interplay of the draft proposal with existing community legislation in particular the unfair commercial practices directive e commerce directive services directive the rome i regulation and of course the proposed cfr.
but i think history will show that we have done the right thing because the work that has been led very well by arlene mccarthy looking at the impact assessment questioning the issues has raised awareness in the proposal and has also got many more people engaged as you yourself indicated.
it seems to me and here are the crucial points i want to make in the short time available this evening that one important thing that is missing from this proposal is the overall strategic framework that the commission wants to follow in the evolution of the consumer acquis.
this proposal addresses goods but at the end of this year before we have this proposal in place we shall have the services directive in place and there are many issues for consumers around that.
we know that you are also looking at issues such as digital products package travel and so on.
i think we need to see what you intend to do with this goods package as part of a broader strategy for the direction of the consumer acquis.
it needs to be future proofed;
it needs to be part of an overall process.
i hope we will be able to move that forward.