kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the french overseas departments have a quota for sugar cane of four hundred and thirty two zero tonnes yet they produce just over half of this.
the commission needs to include imports of sugar cane in its strategy to reduce prices. as well as protecting agriculture in the caribbean we should protect jobs in other sectors and ensure that industry as well as farmers can compete.
i believe we need a market based system and that farmers should rely less on the taxpayer. this has to include the outermost regions of the union.
mr president david cameron has said that we need to create a leaner less bureaucratic union relentlessly focused on helping its member states to compete.
we all know how important smes are to the economies of our countries.
secondly late payment which is causing problems financially for companies to keep afloat.
thirdly the report recognises the importance of women in smes and how they should be nurtured and encouraged to go forward. we must support smes and we must use tailor made eu funding programmes to ensure that recovery for our countries' economies takes place with this asset that we all have.
as liberal shadow for the opinion of the committee on employment and social affairs i welcome the emphasis on gaining access to finance because it is absolutely essential and the same smes that need less red tape and better access to finance are the ones that will ultimately create the jobs and growth that europe needs to work its way out of the crisis.
these businesses particularly need this finance if they are planning business expansion and it is particularly important now because the banks are providing for less reliable lenders and are hiking up their interest rates so reliable businesses are having to pay more and more in this respect.
this report looks for innovative ways of helping mobilise cash for these businesses and we must welcome that at this time of crisis.
they have suffered the most under the global financial crisis so i am delighted to support eu growth measures to boost smes and protect them as far as possible from the economic uncertainties and increased red tape of today.
we all know the difficulties that small businesses can encounter particularly when appealing to investors and so the commission's efforts to foster competitiveness and an entrepreneurial spirit will be most useful.
by curtailing late payments for example it could bring tangible benefits to the recipients of these funds.
this is one area in which the eu can deploy its cohesion policy to promote pro growth efficiency of investment reduce the burden of bureaucracy and over regulation and allow smes the enhanced lending and assistance that so many of them desperately need in the current economic climate.
we have tried that option and the countries which have received the largest handouts have been the slowest in their economic and democratic development.
the countries that have been the biggest beneficiaries are the quickest to become reindebted.
the single best thing we could do is to abolish the common agricultural policy which penalises them twice over firstly by closing european markets to what is overwhelmingly their best export product;
secondly by dumping our surpluses uncompetitively on third world markets. here is the best bit scrapping the common agricultural policy would not cost us a penny.
on the contrary it would make us better off as taxpayers because we would not be subsidising the production of food for which there is no market.
in other words the best way to help poor people in poor countries has the delicious bonus of helping poor people in europe.
and rather than do that we are standing up for the vested interests of the eu machine.
shame on us.
small traders in particular have been going through an extremely difficult financial situation over the past number of years.
while i supported this report i would have preferred it to have been more proactive in pushing the banks to invest in the economy. however it is a step in the right direction.
it is right on the atlantic periphery of europe.
the farmers that i represent know all too well the problems associated with being a smaller region with difficulties in transport and access to markets.
however i also believe that we must strive to make europe a more competitive region with emphasis on jobs and growth.
in northern ireland the agri food sector has continued to grow despite a severe restriction in the economy overall.
ensuring food security for europe is vital. however i question the value of measures that are not geared to the sustainable competitive sector and which have ramifications for the farmers that i represent.
on a point that mrs girling makes about tobacco surely after all the money that we spend on campaigning against tobacco we should be consistent in this house and ban smoking rooms and smoking booths.
it also indicates that continuous improvements and enhancements are necessary to bring the fight against fraud and irregularities in line with the expectations of the european citizens.
i want to tell you here that interpreting the true meaning of the fluctuations in the number of this kind of irregularities reported and in their related financial value is always difficult and could easily be misleading.
to ensure the european budget is delivering its optimal impact and value for money the commission and the member states have the duty to make every effort to prevent public money from being defrauded.
identifying the main reasons behind increases and decreases in the number of irregularities is always as you know a complex exercise.
this is in line with the general approach of this commission to streamline processes and focus on key issues in the relevant fora.
it is the detection efficiency of member states that counts.
but we also should know that reporting of irregularities does not always mean that the budget lost the amounts.
as observers we tend to associate the positive judgment to decreases and the negative one to increases of detected fraudulent activities.
the commission should decide in july of this year what action to propose before the end of the year before december.
but let me tell you that we also addressed this conflict of interest among other things in the public procurement directive of two thousand and fourteen where the definition of conflict of interest is introduced and i can also tell you that the commission prepared guidelines with member state experts on conflict of interests.
fighting corruption has become a key element of the european semester process.
dg just is carrying out an impact assessment has launched a public consultation in march and is about to launch a targeted consultation.
well an effective fight against corruption within the european union remains essential delivered through the right vehicle.
however we should never forget that we are looking at the member states' capacity to prevent and detect fraud.
and then of course we recognise that there is a conflict of interests.
i want to underline that the commission will take up anti corruption matters in the context of its main economic policy dialogue between the member states and the european institutions.
please rest assured that the commission is fully committed to continue to strengthen the protection of the european union's financial interests and to reinforce our efforts in this area.
thirdly from a managerial point of view we need a full implementation of a budget focused on results strategy.
the final goal is to secure better revenue permitting the implementation of stronger policies while keeping the irregularities in expenditure under control increases the credibility of the institutions.
for example you get proposed responses like a european public prosecutor's office because the system will fail to function without it and responses include imposing rules across all twenty eight member states.
and that is also before even asking the fundamental question as to whether taxpayers got value for money from the cash that was spent.
that view is logically internally consistent and however much i disagree with it i respect those who honestly hold that view.
that is what we in the united kingdom are doing.
once power moves from a nation state to the european union in one area it inexorably follows that powers must continue to flow in that same direction. that is how the european union is set up. really there can only be two honest positions here. either you support a european super state with all that entails
mr president this report identifies eye watering levels of fraudulent activity costing the member states of the european union eur six hundred and thirty seven million in.
and the loss of sovereignty and identity that comes with it.
the other position is to recognise that the alternative is to leave the european union and to get off the train before it reaches destination super state.
but i just think if only the european union had remained as a trading organisation rather than a political monolith i am sure we would not be in this position today.
but this report in a lot of ways beautifully illustrates the european project as a whole because whenever you have more europe in one area it will result in problems implementing across twenty eight countries and the european union will inevitably have to propose more harmonisation as the answer.
experience a high level of corruption if they are not part of the eppo?
beyond the protection of financial interests it will continue also investigations into serious facts by members of the institutions and staff likely to lead to disciplinary or criminal proceedings.
the commission acknowledges that the reported data are still not fully comparable and takes note of the request of the parliament to improve the situation.
the document is expected to be finalised this year.
like the parliament the commission supports establishing a strong and efficient eppo with as many member states as possible and with the necessary means to effectively fight crimes affecting the union budget.
there are also important ongoing legal initiatives.
it is by acting together towards the same target that we have achieved all these improvements.
protection of the european union's budget is all the more important at a time when the trust of citizens in the european project and in its capability to bring security and prosperity is at risk.
we have adopted several important acts modernising the legal framework for the protection of the financial interests of the european union such as the revision of the olaf regulation in two thousand and thirteen the package on public procurement directives in two thousand and fourteen and the four delegated and four implementing acts on irregularity reporting.
over the last five years together we have significantly reinforced a framework for the protection of the union's financial interests.
let me recall just the most important measures that we have adopted.
it is also thanks to the political pressure exercised by the european parliament in its annual resolutions that several issues highlighted in the commission reports have been addressed and progress has been made at european and at member state level.
i would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee on budgetary control and in particular ms pitera the rapporteur for the excellent work done on this motion for a resolution.
we are convinced that the eppo has significant potential to improve the current situation as regards the low level of prosecutions for crimes affecting the union's financial interests.
the negotiations of the european public prosecutor's office have moved forward very fast in the last month and we now have seventeen member states willing to establish the eppo in enhanced cooperation and a few more making preparations to join it.
the second is to extend the use of it tools by all member states to strengthen the fight against fraud and the third is the accomplishment of harmonised and qualitative reporting of the detected irregularities and frauds by the member states.
new guidelines are being prepared in cooperation with national experts to address the most important issues to reduce disparities and standardise the reporting process.
the commission is determined to maintain a sufficiently strong olaf which will operate across all member states and will thereby play a crucial role to ensure that an adequate protection of the european union's budget is assured in the whole european union.
it is by analysing such data that we can ultimately understand whether the measures we have adopted really make a difference.
it will complement and support the work of the eppo.
the commission will keep on fulfilling its role of supporting and assisting member states where needed and of facilitating the exchange of best practices and know how.
the last and not the least of these legal achievements is the directive on the protection of the union's financial interests by means of criminal law for which a political agreement was finally reached also thanks to the persistence of the parliament. but this is not all.
at a time when all our constituents are having to tighten their belts we should have signalled in this report that we were willing to tighten ours too and we did not.
it is a missed opportunity.
my concern with this report is that it is a missed opportunity.
this prohibits the use of human embryos or foetal cells as an alternative to the use of animals in this directive though there is little consolation for me that the amendment leaves the ethical decisions to the member state as the irish government and courts have consistently refused to protect embryos and i have been assured that
we have taken some measures towards limiting and reducing animal testing and we must go further but at no time can we forget the principle that we cannot use human beings as a substitute for other forms of testing.
we must reduce animal testing but humans are still not to be seen as the alternative.
i was intrigued just now to hear mr hannan from the conservative party suggesting this should be a matter of national discussion and democracy.
it shows that trade and animal welfare are compatible and we should rejoice in that.
the fact that a labour chair of committee led this campaign in the face of intense lobbying by the perpetrators of this cruel and obscene trade is crucial in realising its success.
mr president this ban is great progress and represents a true victory for campaigners across the south east of england particularly as you could imagine and across the european union many of whom have written to us in the house to demand the end of this cruel trade.
it was not the watered down original as my colleague richard corbett pointed out but after critical amendments were proposed by arlene mccarthy the ban was voted through in the committee and now in parliament.
if we were to rely upon that particular route only eight countries would be signing up to this particular ban as opposed to the twenty seven by voting it through the european parliament.
mr president i am absolutely delighted that this report has been adopted by such an overwhelming majority and we can look forward to a ban on the import of seal products into the european union.
as rapporteur she should have represented the views of the committee where there was a very clear majority and not sought in a number of ways to overturn what was clearly the will of a very large majority in this house.
mr president although today was a good day for animal welfare in terms of seals it was a less good day in terms of the way we have just voted on animal testing.
it is possible to go further.
we need to do much more.
mr president this report presented me with something of a dilemma.
there is something not strictly rational about singling out seals for special treatment.
then again democracy is not strictly rational. people are not always calculating machines.
it may be as evolutionary biologists would argue that it is the childlike features of the baby seal its large eyes and so on that on a deep genetic level give us a predisposition towards empathy with them.
the point is that you open a dangerous door if you say that the voters are wrong simply because their objection to seal hunting is aesthetic rather than rational or ethical.
so after a lot of thinking i have reached this view about this report because it is obviously such a sensitive and important issue for a number of our voters it should not be decided at eu level at all but should rather be determined properly through the national democratic mechanisms and procedures of every member state.
you can try and dream that up and say it is true but it is not true.
in ireland we got hit the tune of eur sixty billion because you had no brakes or no lights on this vehicle.
eur six billion in the last two years we have borrowed and burned.
imagine you went out in the morning and bought a car but when you went out to drive it you discovered when the dark came that there were no lights and when you tried to put your foot on the brakes it would not stop and crashed into the ditch. you have admitted that you caused the problem but when that happens when you go for something when you promise something
we are currently picking the glass out of our face.
now that measures have been taken to get things on a proper footing and things are beginning to grow again it is only right that we should reflect and see how we can keep this growing without impinging on national sovereignty.
one of the nicest headlines i have seen in the last couple of weeks was one which said eurozone economy grows more than expected'.
i am quite sure they will reflect on what has been said and eventually come up with good practical proposals.
own. one option is the european investment protection
issues. our reflection paper frames them with strong caveats notably in terms of preventing unwarranted consequences for financial stability and for moral hazard. in the area of economic and fiscal union the aim is to see convergence between member states towards more resilient economic structures.
the euro quickly became the symbol of prosperity for our citizens and it should remain so.
it has brought price stability and has made it easier to do business and to travel.
this is really welcome and positive but more needs to be done for example on the investment side.
it is really critical that we have clarity in how capital markets union becomes a reality for the eu. twenty seven given the important role the uk is playing in terms of market finance and given the importance of the euro as a global currency how does this reconcile with calls to localise ccps out of the uk? secondly with the cmu mid term review one of the focuses is on greening of the cmu.
we still have six excessive deficit procedures open right now.
a more stable euro and a more stable economic and monetary union will undoubtedly lead to more growth more investment and more jobs. the stability of the euro and the job creation process in the european union is one of the main concerns of the citizens of the european union and this is why we have to address this.
besides respecting the rules what should we do?
if this economic reality leads to the conclusion that we should adjust our institutional framework through the creation of a treasury and a finance minister then we should be ready to think about this and to discuss it but we should not start the debate about improving our economy by new changes in our institutional setup in brussels.
we should not start now by questioning the rules which we have given to ourselves but we should start by applying these rules because as we know unsustainable debt leads to loss of trust loss of credibility and is also a big burden for the economy.
how should we achieve this?
more than twenty member states of the union over the course of the recent years have been in excessive deficit procedures.
so we welcome the commission's proposal with a plan which finally recognises that the problems of the eurozone are not only financial stability but also growth job creation and upward economic and social convergence.
we hope that this instrument will be created in the upcoming next budgetary framework. we need to have it as soon as possible otherwise we cannot reverse this logic of divergence.
the proposal coming now from the commission to have an agreement involving parliament the commission and the council to discuss this makes sense and we are available to do so.
we hope that this will lead to a different kind of relationship between the eu and the uk and that is what we are looking to do.
of course we had our reasons in terms of whether we could join the eurozone or not.
the timing was not right for us and i am not going to go into what would have been the consequences had we joined or not.
tell that to italians whose economy is not much bigger than it was at the turn of the century!
tell it to greeks whose death rates have soared amid the collapse of the healthcare system!
mr dombrovskis says recovery is firmly under way after having incorrectly anticipated it for several years but this so called eurozone recovery is akin to a drunk managing to stagger three consecutive paces in a straight line.
we know it is going to lurch face first into a brick wall at any moment because this is a flawed political construct.
to trap greece and other southern economies in the same currency as germany is simply folly.
these economies need their own currencies that can depreciate to protect their activity levels in the face of germany's superior productivity path.
they do not have germany's scale brands r d budgets communications infrastructure technical education system export networks harmonious industrial relations or work ethic.
but instead of navigating back toward sensible economics the eu keeps using the ideology of integration as its lodestar.
even romania and bulgaria are expected to join the euro lining them up for the same fate as has been visited upon greece.
unless the people of germany are willing to fund giant and permanent transfer payments to the weaker parts which they are not there is no long term case for expanding or deepening the eurozone.
madam president the eurozone still faces two major fundamental problems its component parts diverge economically and socially and divergence is increasing. this allows parts of the system to automatically benefit from the rules of the game and others to lose out.
secondly the only available mechanism to repair imbalances is internal devaluation.
as in the five presidents' report the commission paper lists the tools that could if properly used help to counteract these two major flaws.
this has been the case with the application of the twopack and sixpack process so we have budgetary balances while public investment remains in decline.
madam president in typical commission fashion a european unemployment insurance scheme is dangled like a carrot to gain public support while the trade off is the harmonisation of labour relations and anti worker reforms.
as for the proposed investment scheme it is contradictory nonsense to create a scheme to protect investment during downturns while insisting on keeping the fiscal compact strait jacket in place.
i do not oppose transfers to correct imbalances but i will oppose them if they are conditional. social rights cannot be dependent on economic performance or a state's adherence to fiscal rules.
rights are rights.
we will not fall for the trap of surrendering more ground on democratic rights in exchange for crumbs off the table.
you would not have had a choice in the election if you had joined emu. are you sorry you did not join it or are you glad?
surely this house would rather see an amicable solution found to the situation that involves dialogue rather than petty and cheap mudslinging. if this resolution is genuinely an attempt by this chamber to assist in the resolution of this matter in an amicable way then it is in all our interests to move forward in talks between the polish government and the commission. if this is not a politically driven resolution then i believe this house can agree to this simply modest request.
i think that what we need is a balanced european economy.