kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
where a payment of eur five million was given to the fai to deal with an issue that went back to the qualifiers for the two thousand and ten world cup in south africa.
the rules of the qualifiers were changed by mr blatter and indeed mr blatter broke a confidentiality clause. so in terms of the payment given to the fai yes it was unusual but that was put back into the purchasing of a stadium and ultimately into irish football.
i think it is important that the european union speaks with one voice when it comes to dealing with the corruption cases that have dogged fifa for many years.
good governance is absolutely essential in the beautiful game and is something that we all very much welcome across the european union because of the importance of football as the great international sport that it is. i would like to refer to one issue which has arisen as a consequence of this entire sorry saga and which involves the football association of ireland in my own country
in my view what was given to the fai an unusual payment was nonetheless small change by comparison to the great injustice that was meted out to ireland on that occasion because of the fact that we did not get through to the world cup qualifiers. on that occasion the issue was addressed.
how is this going to resolve the corruption?
i have been here for sixteen years and i have been railing against fraud waste and corruption and heaven knows there is plenty of it but maybe i was unfair to pick on the european union simply for sharing attributes that go with almost all global bureaucracies including this one.
but the eurocrat the fifa delegate the un official the member of the international olympics committee you name it they are accountable only to themselves and so can concentrate on making themselves comfortable which is why the only solution instead of setting up more probes and more inquiries is to take power closer to the people so that you cut out the opportunity for the corruption.
the difference is the lack of accountability.
the businessman is answerable to customers clients and shareholders. we politicians are answerable to voters at least in theory.
madam president rarely can the phrase armchair generals' have applied quite so literally. here we have the armchairs and in our rhetoric in these reports we are adopting the most belligerent tone when in reality the european union is considering lifting even the feeble sanctions it has already imposed on the kremlin if russia stops advancing further.
the annexation of crimea has in effect been accepted by all sides.
the reason that i suggest we have this dichotomy is because we have a guilty conscience.
we feel that we stirred up a problem that we were not then prepared to support with the resources military and financial that it would have required to rescue our own victims.
the good news is that the european union is not the sole organ of foreign policy. in ukraine my own country has been most strongly engaged with canada and the us in providing assistance and advice to ukrainian forces and as long as nato rather than the eu remains the basis of our security we may yet avoid a total failure.
recognising women's ability in the workplace and assisting them through media such as an eu report to strengthen their position is vital.
secondly we need to embrace national education concepts for young entrepreneurship in schools for example or to encourage female one year entrepreneurship or apprenticeship programmes in universities;
to address these difficulties i proposed a few amendments such as firstly to make better use of funding opportunities that are available to female entrepreneurs which allow fair and equal access to finance;
however when we look at small and medium sized enterprises today we find they are still mainly run by men which means that much of the population fails to reach its potential.
whilst researching my report i found that the difficulties women faced in setting up smes within member states were more or less the same.
the report also recognises the contribution women in employment can make both to the local community and to the economy of the eu and points out clearly that women have the right to choose the role they play within the home or the community they live in.
the aim of the report is to make this choice a reality through practical guidelines and best practice recommendations which member states could adopt if they so wish.
as a woman who has been running my own company for twenty five years i know first hand the problems women can encounter when trying to establish a viable sme.
i hope that this report will be adopted by the european parliament and that ultimately member states will be able to use it as a basis for supporting women who wish to move forward in this field for in spite of all the constraints and restrictions upon them women have proved to be more than capable in the workplace when starting a business.
all these topics are very important in their own right but they are not really relevant in a report that specialises in women and smes so for this reason i am not going to be supporting these separate votes.
this report recognises the value of women entrepreneurs in smes and acknowledges that women face many different problems in different member states in attaining their objectives.
many women have to juggle their own aspirations to succeed alongside their commitment to their family.
madam president as governments face economic turmoil it is vital we harness existing resources to the maximum and one of the best resources we possess are companies and businesses which can help create the wealth that is needed in a successful and vibrant economy.
eu member states differ in their approach to women looking to run their own businesses and in the support they give these women.
this will not only encourage women to move into the world of business but will ensure when they move into it there is an even playing field and there is no room for gender discrimination.
thirdly we could recognise the importance of female ambassadors as they help promote competitiveness by inspiring women and young girls to set up their own businesses.
often they were unaware of the mechanics needed to start a business they lacked the confidence or were unsure where to seek advice and found financial institutions unsympathetic to their specific needs.
as. regards control measures the compromise text acknowledges member states' competencies to implement such measures while guaranteeing increased transparency for service providers and providing for an ex post monitoring mechanism by the commission. in addition specific concerns as regards the role of the social partners have been taken up in the compromise text.
it introduces the possibility for workers to hold the contractor in a direct sub contractor relationship liable for any outstanding net remuneration corresponding to the minimum rates of pay in addition to or in place of their employer. besides these key provisions the text also provides for increased cooperation between all administrations involved
it contains a comprehensive package of appropriate measures for better enforcement and implementation of the rules governing the posting of workers. it guarantees better protection of posted workers and companies involved as well as setting out a more transparent and predictable legal framework for service providers in the single market.
improved access to information and the cross border enforcement of fines and penalties.
for example the introduction of the criteria to be used for classification as a worker by the host member state; the reference to bogus self employment;
discussions were difficult until the last moment but both institutions demonstrated the necessary spirit of flexibility which finally paved the way for reaching an agreement on the text as a whole. the compromise text is a balanced one.
altogether the comprehensive package of measures will considerably improve the current situation and provide for a number of appropriate tools to improve the protection of posted workers' rights and prevent social dumping. considering the provisionally agreed text as the best compromise that could be
parliament has insisted on a number of points which have been taken on board and which the commission considers to be helpful.
furthermore and to a large extent following the commission proposal the compromise text greatly improves the protection of workers' rights in sub contracting chains in particular in the construction sector.
then the ecj came back with the answer yes it is a fundamental right to strike but not as fundamental as the right of free movement.
they took it to the european court of justice and the european court of justice found in favour of the employers.
the rapporteur's latest brief emphasises workers' rights when posted to another country but surely that is a question of the national law of that country.
by way of collective agreement they undertook to pay those workers less than the swedish minimum wage which was an act of law in sweden.
the rapporteur herself is unhappy with at least most of the amendments and is asking for a pass on the whole thing without the amendments.
but that brings me unfortunately to the dreadful business of the laval case.
if that is followed why is there the need for extra legislation?
when the employers and the unions in sweden objected further and said that they might take strike action and was that not legitimate was that not within the rule of law was that not a right?
it will not surprise you to know therefore that there was a lot of focus on the relation between this and the ability to keep the single market moving forward dealing with issues that have already been mentioned by the council and commission identifying genuine posted workers giving them access to information and stepping up mutual cooperation.
that was the contribution we made and i want to thank the rapporteur very much for considering our input into it.
there were three crucial articles in this proposal for my group articles three nine and.
at that time my region was a region of very high unemployment and many construction workers were going from the north of england to work off the books at construction sites in germany. i spoke in that debate as chair of the committee on employment and social affairs at that time and this is part of what i said back in my constituency week in and week out people who have fallen foul of this situation bring their problems to me and my office;
this proposal should have been an opportunity to remove some of that legal uncertainty but the only way employment ministers could reach agreement was to make article nine as ambiguous as possible.
it will create more not less legal uncertainty.
in other words is it an open or a closed list of national control measures?
half the employment ministers are selling this as a victory back in their home member states because it is a closed list and the other half are selling it as a victory because it is an open list.
the much needed amendments carried in committee on article twelve on joint and several liability in subcontracting chains were one hundred rejected by council.
i hope members will not do the usual thing and simply follow their group whip lists on this.
i hope they will pick up the proposal and read it for themselves particularly article nine to see the problems for themselves and i hope that having done that they will reject this bad proposal.
can a member state add a new national control measure if they come across a new way of avoiding or circumventing the rules?
the series of court of justice cases begun by the laval judgement created real legal uncertainty in this area of the law.
people who have suffered injury at work who suddenly find that they have no legal employer who cannot seek redress or compensation people who are not only not paid for the work they have undertaken but find that their social security contributions have not been kept up by their supposed employer or people who have virtually found themselves trapped paying extortionate rents on tied accommodation controlled by their employer'.
the fact is that this proposal will do nothing to stop those workers suffering the problems my constituents were suffering almost twenty years ago.
posting in order to by pass the law.
i am therefore very pleased to be here speaking in advance of the final vote.
i would like to thank all colleagues who worked extremely hard to get us to this point.
this enforcement directive was proposed to deal with problems that had arisen from the original directive. this included insufficient cooperation between home and host member state difficulties in establishing whether a posting is genuine lack of sufficient information for workers or posting companies for that matter on rights and obligations
this directive looks at each of these problems and proposes measures to improve the current situation. all through this process we have been trying to find a balance a balance between protecting posted workers and maintaining and developing the eu's single market in services.
this has been a difficult task but i think the majority of colleagues would agree that we have achieved this aim.
i am not saying it is perfect but it will significantly improve the current landscape.
for example the list of indicative criteria will assist authorities to establish when a posting is genuine and to catch out letter box companies.
a single national website will provide information to both companies and workers.
cooperation between home and host member states will be assured and will become central to the smooth operation of this system.
member states will be allowed to put in place control measures but protectionism which damages the single market will be prevented through the justified and proportionate' requirement and also the information obligation to the commission.
these safeguards are welcomed.
member states will be allowed to introduce or maintain systems of joint and several liability in sub contracting chains but they will also be allowed to take other measures instead.
this flexibility recognises differences in member states' legal systems and stops the heavy handed potentially damaging approach of imposing liability on all contractors in all sectors for the whole of the sub contracting chain.
this would have discouraged postings discouraged contractors from using sub contractors and damaged the single market so this is a very important compromise.
the aim of this directive is to tackle fraud abuse and unfair competition but it is also about protecting those companies and workers who comply with the rules.
so if you are in favour of clearer rules legal certainty and better enforcement then please support the trialogue outcome tomorrow and vote against all of the amendments.
in fact the enforcement directive is exactly about either preventing or resolving such controversies much faster and more efficiently and effectively than in the past. although the current text perhaps does not represent the perfect result for some of you individually i think it is important to remember that when compromises are struck there is give and take on both sides.
so please do not say that you gained nothing if you have not gained everything you originally wanted to achieve. this enforcement directive brings meaningful improvements on many fronts.
those who still prefer to polarise this debate should not forget that in reality there is no sharp separation of sending and receiving countries in europe. for example germany and france are indeed significant receiving countries of posted workers but they are also major sending
our effort has to be about improving conditions and fighting fraud and abuse without a prohibitive amount of administrative burden. in my view excessive administrative obligations would not improve but rather diminish the employment opportunities of many workers in eu member states.
we need to take this important step to improve the current situation and provide for a number of appropriate tools necessary to increase the effective implementation application and enforcement in practice of the existing posting of workers directive.
adopting this text also sends a clear signal on the eve of the european elections that europe does not accept fraud and abuse at the expense of posted workers.
those concerned about social dumping should welcome this opportunity. of course this is not the last and not the only measure to strengthen social europe in the fight against social dumping.
for example enforcing minimum wage legislation and the fight against undeclared work on which we launched a new initiative last week and giving more support to social dialogue in all eu countries are all equally important in this area. we have to do a lot for more and better jobs in europe but within the context of posted workers very concrete and effective measures have been put on the table and i wish this to be supported by the house.
it is very important that we strike a balance we need to support the cross border provision of services which strengthens the competitiveness of the single market and we need to protect and give safeguards to the posted worker.
in all of this we must make sure that we do not make it difficult for small businesses.
smes cannot so we must make sure that they can take advantage of the opportunities provided by the eu single market. that is good for the economy as a whole but it is also very good for those people who get work as a result.
we want to make sure that those workers have the protections that are essential but we do not want to make it impossible for smaller enterprises to get involved to grow and to create jobs.
the final agreement that we reached in trialogue is a good deal.
it is good for workers because it will make it easier for them to be aware of their rights.
it is good for businesses because it clarifies their responsibilities and helps them to avoid falling foul of employment laws of other member states.
it is also good for the economy because it ensures that companies can freely operate across europe.
overall we want to see fewer rules that are better enforced rather than a book of red tape and employment law that would simply discourage the posting of workers and would harm the single market.
we want to make the eu do less and do it better.
but although this directive will not save the world it will improve the lives of a large number of people.
labour inspections will have more instruments to check on posted workers.
member states will be forced to work together better;
they will have the power to address abuse better;
they will be obliged to inform workers better.
yes of course but i cannot imagine voting against this.
if this compromise will improve the lives of even just a few people who are treated horribly now i can only vote in favour.
and immediately after that we need to start working even harder to really rule out exploitation of all workers in europe.
three years ago four million irish citizens were overnight burdened down with socialised bank debt the biggest bail out in history.
yes irish banks were saved but so were french german and british banks and at the insistence of the esm.
the esm which we voted for the only eu citizens to do so has been dangled in front of our noses only to be cruelly whipped away when it seemed as if it might be of some use to us.
we want to succeed but if the tools we need and the solidarity we have earned are not available to us then we need to reappraise because to play our part in helping to save the euro and then see our own economy and social solidarity destroyed as a consequence is simply not an option.
mr president why are so many people in britain hostile to the european union?
you take a handful of distortion add in some political bias stir in doses of ukip's vilification sprinkle with gullible journalists who do not check their facts and what do you get?
a poisonous concoction an ill informed british public ever more distrustful of europe after being deceived by those who hate europe a united kingdom betrayed by those who lay pretence to patriotism but in practice leave our country weak and with diminished influence.
money will now be able to flow.
the financial impact of the migration package and the agricultural basis will be reflected in an amending letter to be proposed in october.
one to improve our capacity to meet the collective challenge of migration;
we have continued working with limited increases in administrative expenditure.
b. however we are concerned about the proposed cuts on a range of selected budget lines across headings supposedly justified by low implementation rates in mid june.
i will just give you one example.
madam president i think it might calm tempers here if i did make a request to have a vote to refer it back to committee.
let me inform you about the procedure.
of course when we speak about new technologies and about the internet we have different opinions.
madam president it is not always easy to marry transparency with business opportunity. this directive brings data closer to citizens while creating a potential for business and growth which we seek in time of crisis.
my general approach to re use was to keep it as open and user friendly as possible.
i stressed two main issues the format in which public information is made available for re use and charges imposed by the public bodies concerned.
firstly i insisted that a clear preference was given to machine readable formats with other formats possible but exceptional.
we also agree that open formats should be promoted as should the use of electronic means when processing requests for re use.
my second message was to keep charges for re use as low as possible.
one should realise that lower charges for re use will only attract business and boost innovation and also bring benefit to the end consumer who would otherwise be charged more for the reused base products and services.
i want to thank the rapporteur for putting those things into the report.
second it will set marginal costs as the main principle for charging for public data.
data is the driver of the digital economy and public sector data is a key raw material for new web services and smartphone applications. it stimulates research and helps improve the efficiency of business processes.
in developing countries the use of public sector data is still limited but there too governments are encouraging the use of open data to increase transparency accountability and citizen participation.
importantly all those benefits can be achieved with a small investment as freely available public sector data ends up generating much more revenue than could ever be collected by charging for it.
this is a victory for all who believe that the best way to get value from data is to open it up for re use.
it is a victory for those that believe that public transparency and openness are the only way forward.
this huge resource will once adopted be mined and turned into innovative products and services that will benefit all.
madam president i would like to thank the rapporteurs the shadows and my colleagues from the other committees for the collaboration that we have had on this file.
i was happy about many things in the discussions particularly on the open formats which were very encouraging and give me some hope for the future.
i am afraid that we are now rushing ahead with an agreement for the sake of having an agreement rather than responsibly and consistently legislating to improve the lives of european citizens.
it is better for us to think this over in another reading rather than pushing ahead for the sake of pushing ahead.
the greens efa and i therefore propose that we reject this trialogue outcome with the council and that we go to a second reading and think this over again.
my report calls on the commission and the member states to work in partnership to improve the performance and adaptability of pf techniques. agriculture accounts for seventy of the world's freshwater use.
what we need is sustained and prioritised investment in applied and translational research.