kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
instead we need political leadership to set a new growth agenda growth yes but the important question will be what kind of growth?
eliminating energy poverty is a precondition to eradicating poverty.
the focus of the panel's work has been the interlinked nexus of energy food and water with climate change as an overarching theme.
the world must also move away from the old north south paradigm.
this means introducing market based instruments such as taxes charges and emission trading in order to give economic incentives to limit external effects.
their externality and invisibility allows the end user often to remain ignorant of this kind of cost related to our growth so the price signals to the markets and consumers today are flawed. to change this people corporations and governments must be made aware of the full effects of their choices.
in other words we need to price things in a way that reflects the true costs.
i am glad to see highlighted in the parliament's resolution that the transition towards a green economy requires a radical transformation of the energy sector. i think this is absolutely crucial and i actually believe this is one of the areas where hopefully rio twenty can deliver a very specific recommendation that can lead to immediate action.
let us resist the temptation to unnecessarily politicise stick to a script we can all subscribe to and get on with making a real difference.
this is a non legislative resolution.
with the current economic conditions we need to think much more carefully.
i am fully aware of the various arguments put forward by anti gmo lobbies and pro. i know there are very strong feelings in member states but there are currently gmo crops authorised for use in the european union and it would be entirely wrong to label them as unsustainable and to promote organic agriculture only in this resolution.
marking twenty years since the rio earth summit of one thousand nine hundred and ninety two this is a timely opportunity to assess our approach to international dialogues on the environment and development. we need to ask ourselves if we are moving in the right direction. rather than producing a wish list of outcomes based on the triumph of hope over experience we need to accept the pace of development and find ways of mitigating its effects.
tax. we hear it almost every
i would also like to mention gmos.
the fukushima tragedy must not be used as a modern day trojan horse to push the anti nuclear rhetorical agenda. nuclear energy is an essential part of the energy mix.
yes let us insist that future facilities are not situated in areas of seismic activity but this is not an excuse for asking for a ban.
i would like to resist the temptation to grandstand on the bigger issues today and confine myself to talking about the resolution which we have in front of us because there are a number of blind alleys that we can stray down. firstly nuclear energy.
finally the call for a financial transaction
to suggest that they are not sustainable development is disproportionate.
i welcome the commissioner's outline and look forward to more detail on that subject.
this is not realistic.
if it is read by the un it will merely serve to send out mixed signals ahead of our member states' negotiations.
day; we heard it again this morning from the president of the commission.
this gap allows those who will profit from gas fracking to say that we have no choice but to exploit this environmentally disastrous energy source.
so now we face a fracking gold rush in among other targets lancashire wales southern england france and poland where george soros has just won an almost exclusive licence to loot and pollute almost the entire country. the neo cons and globalists are also excited about the potential of fracked gas to advance their geopolitical agenda of reducing the influence of russia and destabilising the arab world. climate change never was about drowning polar bears.
but none of the above explains the hitherto puzzling role of big oil and neo con foundations in funding the environmentalist protest groups which have led the climate change and anti nuclear propaganda offensives.
of course we have no choice because their useful idiot greens have denied us the other alternatives.
phoney green hysteria has blocked the potential for nuclear and coal electricity to power our civilisation in the post peak oil world.
but then the question of course is whether the eu should then influence these kinds of global conferences and i understood that the answer from mr clark would be no.
as i have heard this debate there is clearly a very strong resonance with our communication and the position we are developing in the commission with the council so thank you for that.
i think that we have a very fine track record in europe over many years that we can actually try to push the world in a better direction by our very strong involvement. i think we should try to do that also for rio. twenty the world is at a very important crossroads and i think the world would be poorer if we were not investing our energy and
i would also say that with the millennium development goals although they are not perfect the world has seen that setting such goals helps to keep a lot of governments focused on what they need to deliver access to water access to education and so on.
i think that it is very important to emphasise that to continue business as usual also comes at a very high price.
this is not doable.
when the millennium development goals were set it was in a world that did not speak too much of environmental goals and not too much of energy goals and that is why we need to get that into the rio.
as long as we still have this choice i think it is very important that the european union is trying to push the world in the right direction.
the commission very much agrees with that.
that is what we should do and i look forward very much to working with mr leinen and the rest of the parliament to get a strong and united eu position on our way to rio hopefully to achieve not just a lot of words and fine declarations but things and recommendations that can lead to immediate action
what we are talking about is whether we want to invest in business as usual and then clean up afterwards and pay the very high price or we want to choose a wiser development strategy and get the growth we need for the nine billion that have been mentioned many times.
moving the world into a more sustainable place.
we heard some of it here today the depletion of fishing stocks for instance forestry nature or raw materials.
the other question from mrs merkies was how we are going to do it. there i think we have something to offer in the european union because we have very good examples that pricing works and we have very good examples that setting targets works.
it is true that to make the transformation into a green economy will demand investments.
that is why we will try to come up with tangible proposals for specific goals when it comes to water energy the oceans sustainable agriculture and forestry.
i must say i disagree strongly.
nor can such a policy be described as sustainable when wind turbines only provide energy for around twenty two of their working life.
so every megawatt of installed wind capacity has to be backed up with a megawatt of installed baseload which in the case of scotland where no nuclear power will be allowed in the future means a heavy reliance on high co two emitting gas or coal plants.
the most vulnerable people in society will be forced to make the choice between food or fuel.
mr president we must take great care that we adopt a strategy for greening of the economy that supports policies that in fact achieve those objectives and not policies that achieve the exact opposite.
twenty in july the department of energy in whitehall revealed that rising bills have pushed.
two thousand and twenty the scottish government has stated that it will not allow new nuclear power stations to be built but rather it will race ahead with a mad dash for renewables based mainly around onshore and offshore wind tidal and wave energy.
this is a scandal of unparalleled proportions but it is one of the unintended consequences of pursuing a policy of greening the economy which is in fact driving people into poverty rather than eradicating it.
what we are witnessing is a dramatic transfer of money from the poor to the rich and from the consumers to the wealthy estate owners and power companies.
it was a complete failure from beginning to end.
that fourteen zero turned into over. eight hundred and fifty zero that put an extreme demand on our social services on our social housing on our national health service and on our social security.
we need to provide jobs for those people.
this i believe strongly supports the argument that the receiving countries hugely benefited from mobile workers from new member states and also the united kingdom on which there has been an exchange of views in the debate.
of four november two thousand and eleven that based on an analysis of recent labour market indicators the uk labour market is in a state of serious disturbance and that removing existing restrictions would increase the risk of an increased inflow of eu two nationals with a potential negative impact on the uk labour market. as we know
i would like to start my answer by saying that for the countries that joined the european union in two thousand and seven the same transitional arrangements apply as for the intake of two thousand and four and the same arrangements also apply to croatia for which the agreement
in the current situation i think we have to look at the concrete labour market conditions in each and every country and not only the european average. as we all know the european averages are not very encouraging.
the business community is expressing this opinion and i think wise policy makers will pay attention to this.
i think it is very useful to look at the debates in germany and austria in which i participated in the spring period of this year before one may when these two countries also eventually had to open up their labour markets for the two thousand and four intake. there was clearly a feeling that these two countries probably lost out
from new statistics unemployment in the uk is at a seventeen year high but i think it has to be stressed that foreign workers should not be blamed for this.
i think it is very important to say that despite the fact that the actual number of workers coming from poland and other countries was much higher than originally expected we have to stress the enormous economic benefit of this
is actually in debt.
it is not about race it is about space we simply do not have enough jobs.
each phase requires more and stronger justification from member states if they want to maintain the restriction to the free movement of workers.
i know that the free movement of workers and the lifting of the restrictions in place are of significant importance to you and it is also important for the commission.
in two thousand and seven ten of the twenty five other member states opened their labour markets for bulgarian and romanian workers immediately.
the commission cannot lay down criteria that member states would have to use.
free movement of workers is one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the eu treaty and a strong symbol for all european citizens.
the labour market and social situation has been analysed in the commission report as well as in a specific chapter of the employment and social developments in europe review a report to be adopted and presented on fifteen december.
what is also important to note is that a member state only needs to send a notification within the deadline without needing the commission's assent to the notification. in that case national law on labour market access will continue to apply after thirty one december.
however the transitional arrangements do not define what a serious disturbance of the labour market or the threat thereof is.
the commission will continue to develop and promote in relation with the member states specific activities to fight undeclared work.
what is however important to remember is that the transitional arrangements do not stipulate that the serious labour market disturbance or the threat thereof must be caused by an influx of romanian and bulgarian workers.
it will include measures to prevent and sanction any abuse and circumvention of the applicable rules.
this restriction can last until thirty one december two thousand and thirteen at the very latest.
the directive thus provides for a significant level of protection of posted workers and avoids that working conditions in the host country are undermined as an effect of competition.
two thousand and eleven concerning the disclosure of a letter of notification the commission must in accordance with existing procedures consult in respect of each such request the member state from where the notification originates.
in some cases the restrictions can even exacerbate the incidence of undeclared work leading to undesired social consequences both for undeclared workers and the regular labour force.
the commission has made it clear though that it expects any member state that wishes to extend restrictions on labour market access to explain why it considers it is undergoing or is threatened by a serious labour market disturbance and to provide justification with data and convincing pertinent arguments when notifying the commission.
it is a pillar of the single market and for fifty years it has contributed to making european integration a success.
according to the transitional arrangements a member states that currently still restricts the free movement of workers can only continue to do so for the final two years of the transitional period if it notifies the commission before one january two thousand and twelve of a serious disturbance of its labour market or a threat thereof.
we are approaching the third and final phase of these seven years.
we are now at a stage where if any of these eleven member states wants to continue restrictions that member state has to provide clear and solid arguments for serious disturbances in its labour markets because of expected inflows of a labour force from bulgaria and romania.
i plead to the commisison to be a true guardian of the treaties and to strictly evaluate the arguments that may be presented for its attention.
i hope the commission will show the strength to reject some of the member states' requests if they are not sufficiently backed by objective evidence and i hope that my colleagues will vote in favour of the resolution tomorrow in order to reconfirm the support that the eu parliament has always shown for the free movement of workers.
the eleven member states that still impose this legally correct mechanism to protect their labour markets could show in reality and not only in words if they are open to the idea of a truly free and functioning single market where barriers for workers do not exist and every citizen can exercise his or her right to work in the entire union.
the criteria should be transparent and objective and should prove that the disturbances are a direct result of the opening up of the market.
on the contrary evidence shows that the transitional measures have only had a limited influence on the distribution of intra eu mobility and that mobility flows are driven by other factors such as general labour demand and language.
it is very important for us to know how the commission will assess the evidence that the member states will present.
can the commission also explain on what basis its judgment is going to be produced?
this is also a way of ensuring fair competition between businesses and preventing any social and economic dumping.
workers' mobility in the european union should never be considered a threat to the internal labour market. therefore our political groups support the opinion that all these transitional measures should be abolished.
firstly they are not about changing treaties or any other kind of legislation.
they only ask for legislation to be implemented with good reason and not implemented at all when there is no reason.
secondly the question and the motion are not about encouraging vagueness.
on the contrary they propose more transparency which is to say that from now on member states should not be able to limit the fundamental rights of fellow european citizens by simply invoking a vague formula by ticking a box. this sort of behaviour is neither rational nor legal it is pure imposition.
when the issue is your rights sometimes even a day can be too long.
there are children dying daily in their hundreds and saudi arabia has decided to block the ports the airports and any travel in also not permitting people to treat those children.
one hundred and ninety eight in relation to rule one hundred and ninety eight i seek that you as the president look to the house to form a committee that looks at the appalling and abysmal behaviour of saudi arabia towards the people of yemen and the funding of any projects of the european union with saudi arabia.
it seems to me that it would be an excellent idea to focus our attention on this issue and the year dedicated to it we proposed. two thousand and fourteen this would be quite sensible. it is also an election year and it is a very practical issue that we can talk about with our citizens. this is not simply about the food we throw out at home there is huge waste in this institution i dare say in hospitals in public places and right through the food chain.
mr president the world population reached seven billion last year and it is expected to reach more than nine billion by.
in focusing on producing enough food for people we must also look at how we use the food we produce and to that end we must also focus on food waste.
however the points at which food waste typically occurs differ depending on the country. in industrialised countries most waste is concentrated at the final stages in distribution and consumption.
in ireland it is estimated that up to a third of the food we buy ends up in the bin potentially costing families more than eur one zero per year. the website stopfoodwaste. ie was set up under the national waste prevention programme to educate people about the issue and to promote awareness of measures to prevent food waste.
we deplore the persistent lack of coordination between eu member states' policies towards libya.
we urge the eu to develop a broad concept for the reform of the security sector in libya with a special focus on parliamentary oversight of the sector including strong elements of human rights and humanitarian law training.
finally let me express grave concern at the fate of migrants asylum seekers and refugees in libya whose already precarious situations have further deteriorated.
in particular we call on the eu to spare no efforts to support the united nations and other non military initiatives to settle the current crisis in particular and to step up its humanitarian aid to respond to the plight of the libyan population.
it should make full use of the instrument for stability and peace with regard to mediation.
even in such a difficult situation as the one now in libya it is also absolutely necessary that the eu supports the empowerment of civil society organisations in particular women's groups aiming at finding non violent solutions to the multiple crises in the country.
as things stand now we must state that the european union has failed to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for assisting in the post gadaffi transition.
in the field of security the eu has a limited focus on border and migration management which did not address the root causes of insecurity in libya.
the cases of arbitrary detention abductions unlawful killings torture violence against journalists and officials and human rights defenders are very troubling and meanwhile there is hardly any government structure to adequately run the country in crisis.
we recognise the house of representatives but hope that all parties will engage in an inclusive and constructive dialogue to rebuild stability and in fact to rebuild the country.
one important step they should take is to ensure that oil which is still flowing is not sold by illegitimate terrorist groups and in this sense i emphasise eu based and international companies' own responsibility to refrain from purchasing such oil.
we must seek accountability for the perpetrators of violence and end the impunity with which the most horrific crimes are now met.
it is time we got to grips with the fact that the instability in libya directly impacts us.
the refugee flows are enormous and suggestions such the one as by the dutch prime minister that this is merely an italian problem are inappropriate and no solution.
we need european leadership and solutions right now.
beyond the loss of lives we had an unprecedented ecological disaster that affects the marine and coastal ecosystems an economic and social catastrophe for tourism for the fishing industry as well as many other maritime and coastal activities.
as commissioner oettinger said before me it is a moment for us to analyse existing legislation in order to check if it provides complete coverage for risk management and prevention.
which a large part of the population and of maritime stakeholders is no longer willing to pay.
i am well informed about this.
this energy is cleaner and will help us to achieve our climate action targets and the diversification of energy sources.
it also offers a huge potential for highly qualified new employment in maritime sectors and coastal regions.
europe is the maritime continent par excellence and we should take the lead in the development of sustainable marine energy sources.
integrated maritime special planning can give us this opportunity. it is the key instrument in reconciling conflicting interests in the issue of this space.
equally our knowledge of the deep sea is dramatically poor and we have to understand this.
we clearly need to better understand the deep sea.
we are also seeing the need for international cooperation and understanding.
so far only the united states is directly affected but i think it is fair to say that this disaster is also a lesson in humility.
we need to share experiences best practice in governance and disaster response.
coordinating our foreign and security policy in these spheres of shared interest in my view is the best way to assert our collective will share intelligence and also enable cost savings to our national budgets.
madam president across the globe we see risks to our peace and security and the tragedy in paris is the most recent example. whether it is an assertive russia a destabilised middle east and north africa the rise of global jihadism changes in the balance of power in the far east and across the world these are global trends and all democratic states in our union have a shared stake in solving them.
to become history and be confined to the past i think we have to be as brave and as wise as our founding fathers were able to be.
issue; it is also a security issue and a defence issue but it is also a human security issue. this has to take into consideration all aspects of everybody's life. in general i think we have to look at all the main challenges with a coordinated approach and this is going to be one of the challenges of our foreign and security policy in the months
that is the reason why we are trying to coordinate and i am personally trying to coordinate our work within the commission and within the council. i have started doing that already in these first two months and i am planning to do it even more in a broader sense when it comes to foreign security and defence policy but also security internally counter terrorism and also justice and other challenges that we have before us be they migration energy climate transport trade the economy or even culture and education. again some of you might wonder what this has to do with our foreign and security policy. this is the core i think of our security policy to understand that security is
not for today. but then sometimes or often we lack long term strategies and long