kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
they were right to do so and members of the european parliament are right to do so when european law and fundamental rights are threatened.
we happen to have rules on this continent.
who is going to protect the right of our citizens?
somebody needs to do it and i refuse to accept that all of this is legal and acceptable.
of course we have no proof. they are called secret services for a reason because what they do is secret.
we need oversight urgently;
we need to have european rules that apply to the cross border activities of secret services because we must stand up for the rights of our citizens.
i hope the house will accept that on the basis that we have made significant progress before today and today during the debate.
if we go to different parts of the world be it neighbourhood countries or other continents what example do we want to set?
first of all how can we continue to fund infrastructure fairly and cost efficiently while not impeding the four freedoms of the internal market into the future? secondly how can we ensure that the long established principle of the polluter pays' is developed?
thirdly what is the best way to implement a fully functioning european electronic toll service system in europe?
in drafting this report i was very conscious that the results of the eets on the whole have been disappointing something which the european commission itself has pointed out.
indeed it may be necessary for the commission to go back to the drawing board and consider drafting stronger legislation possibly in the form of a regulation to ensure the creation of an effective eets.
first of all the willingness of the stakeholders to adapt to eets.
as regards the european electronic toll service it seems that following discussions with toll chargers and service providers the key issue seems to be a willingness of the stakeholders to come together to put in place systems in order to suit the road user.
in other words the single biggest challenge to implementing a functioning eets for the end user seems to be political and not technological and i am firmly of the opinion that the possibility of having one single onboard unit to use on all roads throughout the eu which are charged for by tolls is possible;
but at the moment there is no way to force stakeholders to come together to make this happen.
i hope and recommend that further steps are taken to develop and encourage its use throughout the european union.
i think from the point of view of what the issues are that fair and proportionate charging is an issue.
member states which favour a time based system should be allowed to continue to operate such a system.
however the prices charged should as the commission points out be proportionate.
the charge excluding a small administrative charge should ideally be exactly proportionate to the cost of an annual vignette.
unfortunately however the situation at present in some member states is that the weekly vignette can cost up to four times the proportionate cost of the monthly or yearly vignette.
as regards the issue of taxation this is a contentious issue and i believe that member states should continue to be free to set and collect the charges for the use of their own infrastructure within their own jurisdiction.
finally there are huge environmental advantages to this.
my colleague commissioner de gucht regrets not being here this evening to discuss with you the trade growth and development communication but he is firmly committed to deliver on a number of its policy proposals within the present commission mandate.
particular attention is being given this year to delivering a multilateral trade facilitation deal and a proposal for a comprehensive eu initiative on responsible mineral sourcing one of the specific requests of the report.
i would like to highlight issues raised in the report where i think we could certainly agree. number one the positive contribution of trade and investment to growth and development. as the communication says no country has ever achieved long term growth without openness to trade and appropriate flanking policies and
this is a clear example of policy coherence for development which we agree is very important. number two trade policy involves very many stakeholders.
what the eu does with trade agreements is create a long term and predictable legal framework allowing businesses on all sides to work together in a sustainable manner.
these agreements are very powerful tools and raise many expectations.
as such this is very positive though of course a trade agreement alone cannot solve all the issues considered important in foreign relations.
it does however create institutions to monitor implementation and recalibrate the framework where necessary.
and every stakeholder has a role to play from governance to customs officials businesses consumers and interested citizens.
the commission is part of those talks.
we consider however that the commission has fared much better than occasionally set out in the report.
again number one eu trade policy does have clear development goals.
our trade offer is tailored to the specificities of the countries concerned.
the trade agreement with korea is one model. the one with central america does not have the same breadth and depth though it is ambitious and bi regional.
under this mandate the commission has reviewed the gsp scheme to reflect the fact that the world has changed since the seventies when we first granted unilateral tariff preferences.
and we wished to focus the scheme on those countries that need most attention in development terms.
our offer is generous and flexible and treats acp partners as economies that have the wherewithal to succeed. we have made much progress in regional negotiations under this mandate and still have the ambition to conclude the most advanced negotiations before our time is up as a commission.
as commissioner responsible for the digital economy i can assure you that the african continent has harnessed mobile communication technology in a way that brings tangible and innovative benefits to people from all walks of life.
this is the africa we have in mind when we think epas.
and third i am concluding with human rights where i would like to remind you that the eu's trade policy is conducted in full respect of the principles and objectives of the eu's external action.
it was turned down on a technicality as we could not get the application in by four o'clock.
mr president it does seem to me and judging from the atmosphere in the house here that this is whatever the rules may say a matter for your discretion and surely there was a great deal of sympathy within this house with the idea that the subject of mali should be on the agenda of this week's business.
so i put it to you mr president do not hide behind the rule book.
mr president with the debate on ttip picking up across the atlantic it is becoming clear that both the eu and the us executives have severely misjudged the public mood on investor state dispute settlement or isds.
isds has proved to be an obstacle for congress to support ttip.
in this house a large and growing number of meps are conditioning their support for the continuing negotiations on the full rejection of isds.
eu citizens are not prepared to compromise on democracy and they will not accept us compromising on isds either.
sadly the commission remains intransigent in its defence of multinationals' privileges when it should be the champion of citizens justice and fairness.
isds is like a cancer and the commission is letting it infect the whole of ttip. this undermines ttip's potential to open up trade and set the high global standards that our companies and our workers urgently need.
the current political social and economic situation cannot be understood in isolation from the country's history but if you look at the country's history you see that in just eight years the country has built institutional structures of governance
with key international partners we are now spearheading efforts to forge a new partnership with the government through a new deal compact based on mutual accountability.
in this process we will continue to advocate the importance of joining the cotonou agreement in order to establish a predictable and long term partnership with the eu. let me finish by expressing the european commission's full adherence to the importance of the role of women and girls
in the healing process and dealing with the past. the most important lessons development actors have learned is that the systemic exclusion of women and girls from economic political and social life is the greatest barrier to development and this is a lesson that is at the centre of our action in south sudan.
donor of humanitarian development aid in the world.
we should remember that minority rights are an integral part of human rights and therefore our standards must be as high as possible. let us not forget that respect for and protection of minorities is one of the copenhagen criteria.
when the people in that country are committed to respect for the innate dignity of every human person these differences are seen as enriching and people are valued.
in fact when the dignity of the human person is valued we do not view minorities in a negative way at all.
this leads to discrimination in which minorities are abused and relegated to the poorest of circumstances.
we insist in the copenhagen agreement that a country wishing to join the eu must have at least a minimally acceptable level of respect for everyone within its borders.
today in spite of the introduction of the copenhagen criteria there exist similar terrible circumstances for vulnerable minorities in countries which have recently joined the eu or which plan to.
the copenhagen criteria were clearly ignored in those cases and the treatment of minorities was not considered an obstacle to membership.
mr president the european union has no jurisdiction as far as the status of national minorities in the member states is concerned.
there is no problem however because all european union member states are also members of the council of europe an organisation which is well equipped and well experienced to address that issue.
to duplicate the activity of the council of europe would be detrimental to the scope of our work on minorities and would only create confusion and frustration.
i believe that in this field as well it would be better to develop our imagination more than our memory.
finally instead of revisiting fields already explored the european union would be better advised to develop a concept of transnational protection of cultural rights in a continent where each ethno cultural community is a minority as well.
but yet what we really should be focusing on is making the eu work better.
whatever your views on the eu whether you are sceptical about further integration or you want more europe we should be focusing on making the eu and the internal market work better but also tackling cross border fraud.
can i thank everyone else for signing it.
the problem is this when we had the debate with the commission and council it became clear to many of us in the house that it was not appropriate for us to vote on the resolution and we therefore asked for it at that stage to be postponed.
parliament expressed itself on this subject a couple of months ago; that is absolutely sufficient;
there is no need to do it again at this stage.
the debate that we had with the other institutions was valuable but there is no need for a resolution.
there is one candidate that we cannot support and yet your decision will force us to vote against all four.
can you confirm mr president that by appointing these four interim commissioners they will receive the benefits of being a commissioner for the rest of their lives having served for only three months?
mr president i wanted to be clear that we should incorporate this point into the debate or oral question on russia.
mr president before i speak against let me be very clear that this is an important issue so we do not disagree with the importance of the issue in terms of greenpeace and russia. however i would point out to colleagues that on thursday morning there is an oral question on the rule of law and human rights in russia and i would respectfully suggest that in that debate we have an opportunity
to raise these issues which are important and get our message across in that debate.
calls on the commission in consultation with the european parliament to take this exercise forward in accordance with the treaties with the engagement of the member states while bearing in mind the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of work with other bodies'.
mr president i would like to start by thanking commissioner damanaki for her recent proposal to end the appalling practice of discarding.
at a time when fish stocks are in decline and when some people on this planet do not have enough to eat it is shameful that we catch good fish kill it and then throw it back into the sea to feed the gulls and the crabs.
i hope this legislation will be implemented without delay so that this disgraceful practice can be stopped as soon as possible.
in addition to the commissioner's recent announcement i welcome the recommendations made by the gfcm.
i particularly welcome the recommendations regarding fishing gear especially the introduction of minimum mesh sizes to be used in the mediterranean and the black sea and the prohibition of towed dredges and trawl nets below the thousand metre mark.
the ecr fully supports this report and i again thank commissioner damanaki for committing herself to abolishing discards.
and the support of parliament on the substance of this important proposal.
as you know the recommendations of the gfcm become binding on the european union and in accordance with the treaty on the member states from the date determined by the gfcm.
this is why i believe that the commission should have delegated powers for transposing all future amendments into eu law.
this is something we have to avoid.
it is not a way of avoiding the competence of the european parliament on these issues but we need timely transposition.
i therefore regret that the institutions cannot agree on this important question.
i hope that further similar steps will allow us to unblock negotiations on the proposal and proceed with its adoption. at the same time it is necessary to continue to reflect on the most effective ways to transpose measures introduced by regional fisheries management organisations into eu law.
this means that the conservation policy has to be provided with a new and fully fledged operational scheme for fishing effort management of mediterranean fisheries.
i would just appeal to members of this house to consider the irony of the similarity between that argument and the one that was trotted out in the aftermath of the french dutch and irish no' votes.
in this chamber again we kept on hearing that people had not properly understood the question that they had really been voting on something else against mr chirac or against turkish accession or against anglo saxon liberalism and that they had not understood the issue and that they needed better information.
clarify directly with you about your issue of a point of
mr president the east of england is the bread basket of britain and i have received hundreds of emails from my local farmers about glyphosate the weed killer many gardeners know as roundup.
it is the only product available to control weeds such as black grass. it is vital to no till regimes that enhance soil quality and it is crucial for maintaining crop yields of wheat barley and rape. the environmental impact of losing glyphosate would be enormous as would be the effect on food production.
we need farmers to produce the food for our growing population and they tell us that glyphosate is not a luxury it is essential.
european expert scientists have concluded that the product is not carcinogenic to humans but people are concerned and it is right that research should continue.
despite all this socialist meps were trying to demand an immediate ban now. i disagree.
mr president today the fog around the intention of the european union to form formulate and control a central military and defence capability was finally revealed.
my only surprise is that this eu decision and this eu announcement today were made so close to the brexit date given how contentious the subject is in the united kingdom.
i chose to vote against every vote relating to the eu intention and ambition in defence and military capability and strategy.
it is my strongly held belief that defence and associated military resourcing decisions are those of a sovereign nation and its government.
i do not support interference or ambitious future control in this domain by the european union.
trade can play an important part in ensuring not only civil and political rights but also economic and social ones. just think about the role that trade related assistance programmes can play in ensuring development in many poor countries around the world.
europe must further invest in lng terminals and help do the same for its newest members.
an essential piece in the puzzle is the liberalisation of the internal eu energy market.
irregular migration fuels human trafficking modern slavery and child exploitation.
this is certainly not the first operation of its kind but i must highlight that it is almost impossible to have a coherent european approach to immigration or at the very least good cooperation between our institutions without communicating with us and without having the respect to at least inform us what is happening.
many of them sound logical enough but we are in an elected assembly with co decision powers and a role in the appointment of the directors and allocation of the budgets of european agencies.
when operations are undertaken in a way which is secret from this parliament then the obvious conclusion is that something is wrong.
the most essential element of any immigration policy is trust by the people of europe.
i believe in a fair but firm immigration system but i also believe in one which follows the rules where correct rights are applied and procedures are followed.
such operations should not be interpreted as intimidating to those who genuinely seek asylum and most of all the safety and welfare of any child must be at the forefront of our minds in such operations.
in terms of some of the themes that have come out from the debate perhaps the most important starting point is what can we do to protect consumers in future?
i think more generally in terms of what we need to try to do to improve retail financial services for consumers across the european union we do need to have more transparency.
we do need to try to increase the size of the market so that consumers are able to have the best choice of products that is available and as mr kelly mentioned if you look at the pricing of certain financial products across the eu they vary hugely from country to country.
one of the ideas behind the green paper on retail financial services that i have launched and the process we are working on is to try to strengthen that single market for retail financial services and think about financial services not from an institutional point of view but from the point of view of the millions of our fellow citizens who use them.
now i start with that point because the importance of trying to build a stronger single market for retail financial services links to the point about having a single market for capital and the free flow of capital which a number of colleagues have referred to.
that i think underpins the approach that the commission has taken in the case of these foreign currency loans.
as a number of colleagues have said it is very important that we strike a balance between the interests of consumers and clearly there it is absolutely and perfectly proper for member states to take action to protect the interests of consumers but at the same time if we want to uphold the single market in capital if we want to deepen it and strengthen it we have to uphold the
legal framework that operates and we need to make sure that governments when they take steps perfectly properly to protect consumers do so within the framework of that law.
that in essence is what lies behind the approach that the commission has sought to develop with a number of member states.
in response to a specific question i was asked how many member states consulted the commission in advance of taking measures well member states are not obliged to consult the commission before the adoption of the laws in fields of financial services.
we are also as i said in discussions with the croatian government to see if we can find a balanced solution to the challenge that we face.
it is not the case as was alleged that the commission is seeking to infringe member states who take action to protect consumers.
i hope i have been completely clear that it is of course absolutely proper for governments to take those actions but as a number of colleagues have mentioned the issue of retroactivity is extremely important the question of proportionality is extremely important and the
issue where there is no differentiation by governments in the laws they pass between consumers is also a cause for concern. i am hopeful that we will be able to find practical solutions to the problems that we face.
i am encouraged by the support i have had from a number of members of parliament for the approach that we are taking.
i am personally involved in doing that work;
discussing it with ministers.
i hope that we will be able to make that progress in order to provide clarity and legal certainty for financial services but also for consumers.
so as far as croatia is specifically concerned we are continuing to assess the situation there and to make sure and explore whether the actions they are taking are compatible with the single market and the commitments that croatia has made under european legislation.
we will keep up the pressure on that.
also we are following discussions in other countries where possible measures in relation to foreign currency loans are being considered just to check that they are in line with eu law.
i will keep it firmly under review and we will take the necessary steps that we need to make sure that consumers are protected but that we have a common framework and we uphold the rule of law so that businesses are able to invest with certainty because if we want to get growth and jobs to be encouraged if we want to encourage investment and if we want to build a capital markets union then businesses need to know
the fact that america canada russia and many central asian countries are also full members gives the organisation great credibility and breadth from vancouver to vladivostok' as the osce itself boasts. the osce is rapidly usurping the council of europe as the principal and most relevant forum for discussing democracy
the osce's field missions in countries like georgia and moldova are contributing significantly to stabilising societies traumatised by recent disputes and frozen conflicts.
kazakhstan's current chairmanship of the osce has helped to enhance the organisation's profile and refocus our attention on central asia and in particular on the issue of security and the fight against international terrorism.
undoubtedly there are many possibilities for developing the eu's relationship with the osce.
however in fashioning this partnership i hope the high representative will give due weight to avoiding duplication of effort and thereby the wasting of taxpayers' money at a time of austerity.
lastly i would suggest that perhaps the two organisations the council of europe and the osce consider amalgamation.
that might save a lot of money.
there are many serious human rights violations terrible prison conditions etc.
it is indeed a remarkable achievement that civil society can fully participate and we must support the parallel event that civil society will organise prior to the astana summit.
mr chastel can i ask you then how you reconcile this with giving kazakhstan the chairmanship of the osce this year and the prestige of a major summit in its capital astana in december?