kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
they make us consider how to preserve our heritage and help us find ways to finance its preservation in a sustainable manner.
the two thousand and eighteen european year of cultural heritage targets the wider european public with a specific focus on young people between fifteen and twenty five years old.
under the european year of cultural heritage unesco was asked to develop four thematic itineraries between lesserknown world heritage sites in the european union in order to attract tourists in a sustainable way but it was also asked to conceive them for chinese travellers especially and to promote them in china under the logo of the euchina tourism year.
the commission services are coordinating our efforts to make sure that everything will go according to schedule.
the main objective of the european year of cultural heritage is the promotion and preservation of europe's cultural heritage and the values it embodies.
the tourism year is also a unique opportunity to restore the image of the european union as a tourism destination in the face of growing global competition from other markets.
as you know these two initiatives are very important for the commission.
these countries are our immediate competitors in this particular region and in the tourism sector in particular. we needed to match their efforts to attract chinese travellers.
the two years are pursuing different but complementary policy objectives.
in addition right from the start we have been working together intensively within the commission and i would like to give you one example.
managing the two initiatives in parallel will not be a problem.
in china we are targeting a wider audience in addition to chinese tour operators thanks to events attracting the attention of the chinese mass media.
i want to assure the member that this is the way in which we are proceeding and to inform the house that commissioner navracsics the relevant commissioner has been in china in the past few days making sure that the issues that are rightly addressed by the member are being addressed and that complementarity is being achieved.
overall both years contribute to developing sustainable cultural tourism.
in the case of china the link between tourism and cultural interests is obvious.
therefore the idea of carrying out the euchina tourism year is welcomed. should the eu china tourism year and the european year of cultural heritage coincide in time? i believe that this is possible in so far as the commission can ensure their adequate organisation. although both initiatives are related to culture their content will be different.
so i do not think that the eu china tourism year can somehow prevent the promotion of european identity and values.
in concluding i urge the commission to put human rights firmly on the agenda with our international partners for example by calling on beijing to restart talks with the representatives of his holiness the dalai lama that have been stalled since.
we also need to consider whether this is the kind of reckless international economic cooperation that we want to promote as eu institutions.
my own choice would be to avoid visiting an occupied country that is being deprived of its right to self determination and i would urge others to follow this policy.
such commercial agreements not only lend legitimacy to china's occupation of tibet but are in fact only possible because of it.
i have never been to china but it is clearly a diverse rich and fascinating country.
i am thinking particularly of tibet where culture and religion have been the target of relentless oppression at the same time as their remnants are being used to boost chinese tourism.
neither have i visited tibet although what i have learned about the country and its culture through my work in the european parliament is compelling.
we should not forget that while tibetans themselves are not permitted to travel freely and while many tibetans live in extreme poverty the chinese state sponsored tourism industry reaps the benefits of the appropriation of tibetan culture and history. in fact tibetans are rarely employed by this industry and are not even required to give their consent to huge infrastructure projects aimed at boosting tourism.
this sponsorship deal puts the club and the city of liverpool at the centre of china's on going occupation of tibet.
much closer to home in july this year liverpool fc signed a controversial sponsorship deal with tibet water resources limited that exploits the natural resources of tibet to the detriment of the local population and the environment.
we will celebrate and promote european cultural diversity while at the same time working to improve opportunities to increase economic cooperation in the words of the european commission with a regime that represses such diversity in its own territory often with the utmost brutality and with a blatant disregard for human rights.
i know that this does not reflect the views of either the fans or the city and i urge the club to reconsider this misguided and ill considered deal.
the unfortunate timing of the eu china tourism year sends a signal that economic interests are once again being prioritised over human rights.
i think that at least once or twice in our lives many of us have already been confronted with the question of whether travelling to a country where human rights are violated is ethical or not.
i believe that as in most issues it is the scale and the severity of the violation that matters.
let us take the case of tibet which is at the rockbottom of the freedom ranking list of freedom house a place where civil and political rights are non existent.
you would find yourself in a place where draconian surveillance measures are implemented to enforce the so called stability' of the region;
where detentions prosecutions and convictions of tibetans for the peaceful exercise of their freedoms of expression assembly and religious belief are carried out in alarming numbers; where many tibetans set themselves on fire because they are
denied their basic fundamental rights;
or where state policies encourage migration from other parts of china in order to reduce the ethnic tibetan share of the population.
i understand that the euchina tourism year is very important for the commission in order to create better relations with china but it could be better implemented in another form.
thank you very much for that question.
i have a very pragmatic response which is to say that the commission when negotiating trade deals and when thinking about its economic partnerships should place human rights and high social and environmental standards right at the heart.
unfortunately the eu has sided with the usa and with the corporations in not supporting that binding charter but that is a very practical way in which we can defend human rights through our economic partnerships and through our trade policy.
of course the commission will definitely see to it that european law is always respected.
i also think that with this and with our debate today and what i believe will be a positive decision in march we are sending very clear signals to all those who are betting against the euro.
we are working on increased supervision of financial markets on better economic governance with our six legislative proposals on the table.
of course we expect that any future government would respect the deal.
once again i would remind you that there are twenty seven member states eleven of them are net contributors and sixteen of them are recipients and there is a san andreas fault between those who contribute and those who do not.
let us look at the interest rate of the german bund.
if monetary union was working all members of the monetary union all countries in the eurozone would be able to borrow money at the same rate at the same rate as the key indicator the german bund but that is not the case at all.
your problem and it is mostly your problem would be better solved by intergovernmental cooperation.
now more urgently i say to you today and most of all to the president of the commission who has the executive power you shall not crucify the taxpayers of the uk and the rest of europe on the cross of the single currency.
nobody ever mentioned or even seems to consider the hard pressed taxpayers of the nation state as you seek to construct this fragile and vain empire.
it began by being a customs union pure and simple then it became a political union but without proper democratic consent then it became a monetary union well sort of because ten member states have been sensible enough to stay out but what we now have is a debt union and it is a debt union which simply is not working.
i suspect that most of all the german taxpayer will not put up with this expensive charade for very much longer.
in the election campaign in ireland those parties likely to form the new government are promising a major renegotiation of the existing eu imf austerity plan lessening its severity.
firstly is renegotiation possible immediately on a new government taking office in ireland and before the new mechanism of?
but this is mere speculation and it is unjust and anti democratic that the irish people are asked to vote for a fog of conjecture.
two thousand and thirteen secondly would this mean substantial reductions in the brutal levels of interest charged?
they were told that their economy would be protected but they were misled and now as the european union does when it encounters a problem it does not take a step back to ask what have we done wrong?
however the positions of those member states who are not part of the euro must also be upheld.
this treaty change will not solve the failure of member states to live up to their agreements under the stability and growth pact.
it will not solve the underlying problems of huge public deficits nor will it make the eu more competitive on a global stage.
it is merely a stop gap measure that should give us more time to get the individual eurozone and our collective houses in order. each of the eu member states needs to look at its own public spending and tax policies and devise realistic programmes to reinvigorate our economies. one line of text added into an international agreement although necessary will be no substitute for real reform and prudence. therefore a real strategy for global competitiveness needs to emerge.
mr president i support this treaty change and my group supports it because we want to see stability within the eurozone.
although the united kingdom is not a member of the euro and i hope it never joins we have a vested interest in its success.
the city of london is the financial capital of europe.
so britain wishes the eurozone well and we hope that the proposed stability mechanism will provide support in the short to medium term.
my hope is that this parliament will act responsibly and approve the change proposed by council.
but in the long term if the euro is to survive and prosper more radical change is necessary.
mr barroso you can have as much supervision and surveillance as you like as much economic governance as you like but fundamentally if countries like greece and ireland and portugal are to remain within the eurozone they need to become a lot more competitive as competitive as germany and that is where your commission should concentrate its efforts.
how else could we have got ourselves into this appalling mess?
it was conceived to make banks lend to people who could not possibly repay.
the day must surely come when politicians bureaucrats and central bankers must be called to account by a fiscal crimes tribunal and sent to prison for a very long time.
give it to the banks to buy junk bonds bogusly rated as double a to shore up their reserves and guarantee salaries and bonuses that ordinary people can only wonder at.
again we are bailing out the banks at the expense of the taxpayer.
mr president in the one thousand nine hundred and seventy s the community reinvestment act in the united states made due diligence in banking illegal. to pursue a political goal the administration laid open the pathway to what we now know as sub prime debt. it proved to be as i said it would at the time a pathway to hell
paved with good intentions.
we have learnt nothing from the two thousand and eight crisis.
we are desperately clinging to a failed political ideal as our cities riot and burn.
yet we have learnt nothing; we are now advocating a form of eurobond a sub prime debt instrument by any other name.
we politicians now love to blame the banks but it started with politics. sadly politicians do not understand money.
when mapping out the way forward we all will have to keep in mind the limitations of the approaches presented in the green paper and strike the right balance in.
in that respect many respondents to the consultation of the green paper have pointed to the merits of keeping financial markets as a signalling and corrective device for the conduct of economic and fiscal policies in member states.
thus i would hesitate to consider this feedback as representative.
they can profoundly contribute to integrating european capital markets at their core thereby fostering efficiency and the international attractiveness of europe as an investment location.
in brief our goal should be to create a strong simple and creditworthy new instrument that would be likely to become the new risk free benchmark on european financial markets.
we do need more fiscal consolidation also in the context of the eurobonds.
there are many quite technical topics to be analysed before any definite decisions are taken and we must take the time to do so as nothing should be left to chance here.
we would have to ensure that solidarity and guarantees across member states for the large scale funding of governments do not weaken the incentives of governments to good fiscal behaviour.
such an instrument can deliver very tangible positive results on the integration and stability of european capital markets.
to fiscal coordination by member states and to limit the time frame of joint issuance at least initially to the time needed to redress member states' government accounts to sustainable levels.
also this house has been and will continue to be crucial in this debate.
at the same time the possible challenges remain daunting.
as i have said before eurobonds without fiscal consolidation will not work and i strongly believe that we will have to combine those two.
the new economic governance as agreed by the european council in december is a welcome development.
it is fair to admit that the feedback via the official channels of this consultation has been quite limited.
these replies came mostly from private citizens and to a lesser extent from different institutions.
yes if deployed quickly and depending on their specific form they can make an important contribution to the current sovereign debt crisis but in their essence eurobonds or stability bonds have a much larger potential.
in terms of the next steps given the ambitious goal and the importance of the issue the commission plans to further clarify the key issues linked to the introduction of eurobonds.
in this case an amendment to the treaty would be necessary.
this means that it is of crucial importance that all participating member states have confidence in other participants' economic and budgetary policies and thus a higher degree of control over each other's policies.
once sufficient clarity has been established on all those issues the commission will give its views on the appropriate way forward.
stability bonds can make the euro area financial system more resilient to future adverse shocks and so reinforce financial stability. we also need to be clear about legal technical and political challenges.
but stability bonds are not a measure to address the current crisis.
the very existence of stability bonds could fundamentally alter budgetary processes notably via the allocation mechanisms.
all these issues require careful further reflection.
the participating member states would collectively decide and approve individual budgetary plans through the allocation of bonds.
they are the next step in eu integration and a tool to limit the risk of future crises.
stability bonds would provide all participating member states with more secure access to refinancing and reduce or eliminate the need for costly support and rescue measures for member states temporarily excluded from market financing.
i do not need to explain to you the likelihood of success of such changes in the current circumstances.
in so far as the introduction of stability bonds will increase the pooling of risk between participating countries this might have the effect of weakening market discipline.
the commission will therefore continue seeking the views of key stakeholders in this respect and will therefore consult in particular member states financial market operators financial market industry associations and academics within the eu and beyond.
for greece the cradle of democracy the unelected commission will determine tax and spending policies that should instead be determined by greek voters through their elected representatives in their own national parliament.
it is unfortunate that the two largest countries have ignored the early advice given in parliament by some groups including ours that fiscal austerity on its own cannot by itself get us out of our predicament.
while it is obvious that the current medicine is not doing any good the reaction to this state of affairs is unfortunately not to do the logical thing and change the medicine but to give more of it on the pretext that the dose is not strong enough.
it is a direct constructive proposal for a change to the current effective euro zone architecture.
it is not a total cure but it should be seen as a building block to the already set foundation of a european stability mechanism.
of course we cannot introduce a eurobond in a matter of weeks or even months.
the most we can do and the aim of our resolution based on the green paper goes in that direction is to issue a credible statement of intent thus setting in motion a change of legal events to bring about the needed changes.
but in doing so we would be strengthening the case for bestowing the efsf esm with the much needed banking licence which will supplement the ecb's successful purchasing exercise at the end of last year.
fiscal prudence and the direct relationship between lender and borrower in this case the member state and the financial investors in government bond markets are the brakes on the system preventing overspending in the short medium and long term.
currently sovereign issuance in the euro zone is still conducted individually by euro zone member states but the stability bonds being proposed would entail a significant pooling of sovereign issuance.
it remains to be seen whether a stability bond could be designed so that it does not lead to an increased risk of moral hazard.
removing the direct link between a sovereign and its investor is a risky strategy.
however designing a stability bond which delivers a reduced cost of debt for some poorer euro zone countries at an acceptable expense for the more wealthy is as big a challenge.
as the german ambassador recently said to a house of lords inquiry stability bonds are not a solution to the existing crisis.
if there is any debate about eurobonds this is not the time to have it.
this is something that could be the crown to an existing fiscal union but it would have very great moral hazard in an incomplete monetary union.
we need to listen to his wisdom.
if a member state spends or borrows too much it risks losing investor confidence.
collective issuance of debt will not disguise the fundamentals and investor confidence in the whole of the euro zone may unnecessarily be put at further risk.
we are well aware in the committee of all the strands of the arguments from those that inherently support common stability bonds to those of the opposite view.
there has been a belief that because of the political commitment of the whole the deterioration in a highly indebted member state would not follow the path of that experienced in other individual indebted countries. we can blame delay and prevarication for our attempts always being behind the curve
but it is time to examine missing elements too including the fact that what we do also marks the level of ambition and commitment to the next stage of evolution of the monetary union and to the euro's place as a reserve currency.
in other words ambition counts maybe even more so in this time of awful austerity.
therefore we are anxious to learn what are the interim results of the consultation on stability bonds and based on the consultation what are the next steps foreseen by the commission.
these decisions to enhance the sustainability of public finances also contribute towards creating the necessary conditions for the potential introduction of stability bonds.
therefore what kind of policy instrument would be the most effective in the short term?
as i said with regard to ambition stability bonds would show that there is a medium term plan beyond austerity.
the redemption pact' proposed by the german council of economic experts shows a long term way that excess debt could be handled.
there is some similarity between that plan and how the australian states first moved to common issuance.
neither should we overlook the possibility of short term euro bills.
i dubbed these once the beginner's bond' but they could be both time and quantity limited with good behaviour needed to allow rollover.
bills also have the advantage of lower interest rates and in these times of high debt struggling fellow member states do need every single basis point squeezed off what they have to pay.
from a personal point of view taking that overriding necessity of squeezing down debt servicing payments i would see eventual recirculation of the profit element of bond interventions by the european central bank back to the indebted member state
as a reasonable manoeuvre.
an ftt is not free money as the popular media would have us believe.
it is time to recognise the limitations of the simplistic ftt and if our true aim is to modify the behaviour of banks without destroying our economies look at the more complex solution of a financial activities tax or bank levies as proposed by the imf instead.
a good example of better regulation principles in practice.
this week's ecofin has gone out and done just that.
however when an independent assessment states that one member state would end up collecting in excess of seventy of the revenue generated from a financial transaction tax it would be ludicrous to claim that such a tax should be implemented at an eu level if at all.
instead of looking at purely political concepts and legislating in haste the council meeting and commissioner emeta's contributions have been based on facts and figures.
instead of derailing the process by calling for unachievable and unwanted eu wide taxes that many member states not just my own are against we must look at this as an opportunity for strengthening our members states' weak public finances and allowing them to use the money as they see fit replenishing their public coffers depleted by bank bail outs and crisis management.
the banks and financial intermediaries would not be the ones to pay for a transaction tax. it would be the pensioners reliant on their returns in the market and companies in the real economy paying for every hedging transaction.
it has been a delicate balancing act between protecting markets from cross border risks and yet also maintaining national governments' responsibilities.
the commissioner has described this quite rightly as just the first brick.
during the debate many of my colleagues said that it was important that the head of the esrb was the head of the ecb. we promised to listen to him when he warned us of risks.
yesterday he warned the council of the risk of a financial transaction tax and told us that this could be a disaster for europe.
let us make sure that we as politicians hold on to our promise and actually listen to the person we say we will listen to.
we support introducing a form of coordinated stability level and a fund but when it comes to the financial transaction tax we are talking about an entirely different and much more complex issue.