kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
at european level european resources such as the european budget and the eib should be used in particular to leverage private investment. we need a stable and robust banking sector and well functioning capital markets to provide accessible credit to the real economy.
we need to ensure that the business climate our internal market and the regulatory environment are favourable to companies investing in the future innovating developing new markets and creating jobs.
we are currently facing formidable challenges that only serve to underline that we have to do whatever it takes to deliver robust sustainable growth and jobs in europe.
reforms are also needed to secure the sustainability of our welfare societies and ability to protect the vulnerable.
without effectively implemented reforms we will not have sustainable growth and job creation.
as stated by the euro group last weekend more efforts are needed to reduce the tax burden on labour.
the more vulnerable countries would unfortunately be the hardest hit by any new financial market instability.
once they rise public debt will become more costly again crowding out more valuable public spending and undermining the market confidence we have all worked so hard to regain.
wise choices are therefore required.
the commission sees three main priorities for economic policy this autumn.
no country is immune from the need to reform although some have more pressing needs.
reforms are needed to deal with these obstacles.
at the same time we need to ask ourselves what is holding back private investment in europe.
major joint efforts are needed to deliver sustainable economic growth. at the end of the day we all share the same objective.
to deliver sustainable growth create jobs and secure the welfare of our citizens.
in some member states starting a business means weeks of cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles.
europe has a lot to offer in terms of innovation a skilled labour force and entrepreneurship.
the second priority is stepping up reforms that unlock growth potential.
nonetheless there is scope to use our existing economic governance framework more effectively to support countries in their reform efforts.
now it is essential to improve the quality of public spending.
i personally believe in research and development and innovation. innovation usually means that there must be strong fundamental research and entrepreneurship.
that is why we have to combine healthy reforms.
this is why we need various reforms.
it depends on the country.
for me this is not a black and white question because investment means demand and that there must be a good level of confidence.
the basic test of any economic policy is whether it produces employment growth and prosperity and the euro has failed on all counts.
for example the economy of italy a country famous for the flair of its people in design cuisine fashion automotive industry and much else besides is barely any bigger now than it was when the euro was born.
the economies of southern europe are on a lower long term productivity path than is germany.
in order to protect economic activity levels they need to have their own currencies to gently depreciate against germany over time.
they need to be able to set their own interest rates too.
these countries need economic self determination.
you have locked them into deflation.
i actually share many of them myself and i thought it was a very good and noble speech. what i am interested in is the way you intend to achieve it.
do you not agree that the best way to achieve these goals is to free people's spirit and entrepreneurial skills let people work freely free of tax burdens and overregulation and too much state and allow people to achieve these things for themselves through freedom?
we were elected to make sure that our top priority would be growth investment and job creation. but we really want real solutions. so far the solutions proposed by the commission are not working this is very clear. you are putting your
main focus on structural reforms and particularly on the reform of the labour market.
the greatest way that we can do this is to free the peoples of europe from the chains that bind them and are holding all of them down the over oppressive state and too much taxation.
free the entrepreneurial spirit of the people of europe allow them to work their way out of poverty;
allow them through their own drive courage determination and creativity to make things great again. i call upon all of you and particularly the commission to please think of these noble concepts. we all want to be better off we all want to be wealthier but let us use our individual creativity to achieve this.
thus it is important to remember what pulse fishing would be replacing and that is traditional beam trawling.
what i have to say is that the concept of quantitative targets introduced in the commission proposal is a new approach and is intended to allow for the concept of results based management and accountability by the operators.
this would avoid the need to prescribe and micro manage the specific details of how where and when a fisherman operates by focusing on the outcome.
so. if i am lying that means that our scientific advice is lying as
subsequently advice from ices in two thousand and sixteen concluded that and i will quote conventional beam trawling has significant and well demonstrated negative economic ecosystem impacts.
provisions. contrary to what mep hookem said we do have independent scientific assessments and according to our independent scientific assessments the conventional way of fishing by beam trawling has proven to have a negative impact on the ecosystem.
let me now turn to some of the specific points raised by member states.
however we should not lose sight of the other important elements contained in the proposal as well as other problematic amendments. whilst the commission is aware of the concerns being expressed regarding pulse fishing it is important that we all recall and keep an eye on the broader perspective as well.
i have taken due note of this very interesting debate.
waters.
we no longer have common objectives across union waters.
with no eu quantitative objectives and targets there is no way to ensure that regional rules will deliver greater sustainability and selectivity in line with the cfp goals.
equally unacceptable are amendments one hundred and thirty one hundred and thirty one and one hundred and thirty six as these would undermine the landing obligation. we therefore count on your support to ensure that the cfp delivers on its key objectives through a meaningful revision of the technical measures guiding fishing activities.
if this amendment is passed it will significantly undermine the incentive for fishermen to improve selectivity.
the reform of the cfp aims at gradually eliminating the wasteful practice of discards through the introduction of the landing obligation.
here i would like to point out that the obligation to fully document catches is already a legal requirement.
there are other elements in the report that are problematic such as amendments that weaken existing provisions to protect sensitive habitats in the mediterranean for example or amendments that dilute measures to protect vulnerable deepwater sharks and other vulnerable species of marine mammals and reptiles
this is of significant concern as it undermines the core principle of the cfp.
it is a fundamental element of the commission's proposal and its deletion risks emptying the proposal of much of its intended purpose.
therefore i have to be very clear that amendments fifty two sixty sixty eight and one hundred and seventy one are unacceptable for the commission as these would remove common targets.
however i would like to take this opportunity to discuss several areas of concern. this is the third attempt to reform technical measures legislation and our proposal was based on the concept of resultsbased management and accountability by the operators. this was proposed to deliver simplification and flexibility to amend technical regulations at a regional level
these targets would introduce accountability and be the basic measuring stick for resultsbased management.
while retaining oversight and minimum standards by setting quantitative objectives.
we also welcome the pech committee's approach on how regionalisation would work in the context of technical measures.
the current legal framework is quite old and no longer in line with the ambitious objectives of our reform policy in terms of greater sustainability as mr mato said. i welcome parliament's position which embraces key elements of the commission's proposal including a firm rejection of reinstating the existing complex array of technical rules and support for the commission's proposal on measures to protect
my second concern relates to the eu landing obligation.
but the specific issues i raised earlier that is the removal of unionwide quantitative targets and the blanket derogation from the landing obligation would seriously undermine the commission's original proposal and key elements of the cfp.
this radical change in fisheries management aims to improve fishing behaviour through improvements in selectivity.
in effect this amendment would provide an exemption from a key element of the cfp.
it is a highly technical issue but it is also highly political because after all we are trying to combine different interests from different member states and different stakeholders.
but i do apologise you had one minute and i am afraid we are well behind schedule.
then commissioner vella who is equally sincere takes issue with some of the points made and i say to myself when are we going to get all this together?
how are we going to convince enough people that we can have a good majority going in the one direction? it seems to me to be very difficult.
however on the level of shareholding which may constitute evidence i would support the sd amendment to lower the level from twenty five to ten.
i particularly welcome the provision to ensure the traceability of payments with the public register on beneficial owners.
we need to change this mind set.
a recent report in ireland reported over thirty nine thousand suspicious activities over a two year period. yet during the same period there were just ten convictions.
there are many positive aspects to this report;
this report will need to be implemented in full.
the view is that money laundering is a secondary offence to the actual crime and that criminals are caught or charged for the crime and not for the subsequent crime of laundering the cash.
with respect to the proposed strengthening of data protection provisions the commission agrees that it is critically important to protect privacy and personal data.
however we have similar concerns to those already expressed on the directive with respect to the proliferation of data protection roles.
with a strong system of financial regulation europe is by no means immune to the problems of money laundering and terrorist financing.
with respect to the proposed derogations or exemptions for gambling services and electronic money the commission would in principle prefer not to introduce such exemptions as there is a risk that if accepted any exemption might be interpreted too widely and be misused.
we are ready to look at practical ways in which the commission might play an enhanced role in the various processes bearing in mind however that we should not duplicate existing and effective processes.
this is why the commission has proposed strengthening the existing rules in line with internationally agreed standards and where necessary and appropriate beyond the international standards.
we believe that several of the more technical amendments helpfully clarify the interaction with other financial services legislation.
however it is also important to ensure that a correct balance is struck so that the anti money laundering directive does not lose its raison d'tre. repeating already applicable general data protection principles which may lead to differences in interpretation and legal uncertainty
i view this as an expression of support for the commission's proposal and a clear signal from parliament of its commitment to take a firm stance against those seeking to abuse the eu financial system for money laundering or even terrorist financing purposes.
this is an issue that will have to be looked at further as negotiations on this file continue.
however it is also important to ensure that there are adequate guarantees that the information contained in such registries is reliable and up to date and that obliged entities must not neglect their duties to further investigate beneficial ownership.
we also need to ensure proper respect of data protection laws.
we need strong rules to protect the integrity of our financial system we need to implement them in ways which ensure their effective application and we need to safeguard the internal market and ensure that europe remains an open and competitive place in which to do business but clean business inside the european union.
i want to focus on this very fundamental issue of public disclosure of beneficial ownership of companies.
this robs african countries of the resources they need to invest in health agriculture infrastructure and poverty reduction.
so while in principle the eu's public disclosure rules are designed to deliver accurate and up to date information on the beneficial ownership of all eu companies in practice they may prove not to be robust or effective.
billion that africa received in aid the same year.
introducing public disclosure of the beneficial owners of a company is of course a vital step forward in enhancing transparency but it is equally important that it cannot be easily circumvented. there is ample evidence that some shell companies are at the forefront of criminal activities from money laundering to tax evasion.
in two thousand and ten african countries lost eur forty.
the twenty five threshold for disclosure will limit transparency and may only assist those intent on dodging the rules.
in a recent case we also saw that a swiss commodities giant was able to use.
achieving transparency on payment sources fund deposits and transfers in order to counter terrorism and money laundering is a legitimate interest of the european parliament but the proposals must be fully in line with data protection requirements.
as civil society organisations have already publicly stated enhancing transparency on beneficial owners will make it easier and quicker for law enforcers to follow the criminal money trail.
mr president i welcome this continued focus on tackling organised crime and its links with terrorism.
as a member of parliament for northern ireland a part of the united kingdom which shares a border with the republic of ireland i know all too well the relationship between criminals laundering money and fuel and financial backing for terrorist campaigns.
it is an undeniable fact that in parts of south armagh and other areas in the border counties of my constituency criminals have used illegal smuggling operations to generate cash for the murderous activities of the provisional ira.
of course money laundering has been a danger too.
it is therefore right that we should ensure as much transparency as possible in relation to the identity of business owners and those who ultimately gain from transactions.
however this must be done in a manner that does not place disproportionate burdens on traders or consumers and should be secondary to support for robust criminal authorities such as the national crime agency or the organised crime unit of the police service of northern ireland.
sadly in northern ireland to the shame of nationalists and republican politicians they have yet to support the national crime agency operating there.
we all need to clean up our acts and both he and we have a job to do.
i commend my prime minister david cameron for the work that he has been doing certainly with the european union in leading international efforts to combat tax evasion and increase transparency which of course is what this is all about.
i hope that is a matter which will now be redressed following the successful outcome of our discussions on this matter.
in conclusion i want to make it very clear that what we are trying to do here is to tighten up rules to make sure that a new set of standards is in place but at the same time to make absolutely certain that we do not penalise those that are going about their work and the transactions in which they are involved
we are after dealing with the transfers of funds for illicit purposes not legal and proper purposes.
mr president the new rules on money laundering will make it harder for fraudsters and organised criminals to spend their dirty money.
for the first time we ask companies to reveal publicly who stands behind them.
such a measure will in particular help businesses to help identify who their counterparts are judge if they are reliable and trustworthy and help them identify seemingly anonymous shell companies.
the proposal also asks member states to hold information about those who stand behind trusts;
this measure is important especially in relation to opaque offshore establishments hiding in tax havens or non cooperative jurisdictions.
their proposal as it stands calls for the publication of delicate details including trusts for vulnerable people in a central registry accessible to all.
moreover it is perverse that amendments should be adopted to treat gaming on line differently from gambling in casinos. this measure is a good one and we will vote accordingly including in view of the amendments we disagree with.
money laundering may seem like a less dangerous form of crime in some people's minds but in reality it goes right to the heart of criminality in europe.
the fight against money laundering is not an easy one it requires often lengthy and laborious processes in following trails;
it involves dedicated individuals sifting through reams of information looking for anomalies;
but it is worth it. at the end of the process they end up catching real criminals the leaders of crime gangs who are responsible for the vast majority of organised crime in europe.
our most central aim is to make it easier for our law enforcement bodies to prevent the abuse of our financial systems and to prosecute criminals.
we must make it harder for illegitimate money to be hidden in europe's legal economy.
money laundering does not restrict itself to the borders of individual countries.
money changes hands and legal jurisdictions constantly.
the very nature of organised crime and of money laundering requires us all to be prepared to put in place nothing short of the most robust rules.
i have always believed that in any fight against fraud and money laundering sunshine is the best disinfectant.
my hope with this package of legislation is that it will shine a very bright light on the dark and murky depths of organised crime.
i am rapporteur on the fund transfer regulation and shadow rapporteur on the anti money laundering directive.
we are all aware of the problems created by the last money laundering directive but i believe this is our opportunity to learn from those mistakes.
this package is about making life easier for those who are innocent and harder for those who commit crimes.
i welcome the main changes which mean that when the new rules are implemented we will adopt a risk based approach extend the scope to cover gambling and open up company ownership to the public.
these are fundamental changes and there will be profound consequences. however i believe they will be viewed positively by citizens and businesses and negatively by criminals.
there have been some big talking points.
on my report my co rapporteur and i saw a number of amendments tabled which would strip away the simplified payments regime that exists within europe but we were both of the opinion that this was unnecessary and would disproportionately disadvantage many payment providers and their customers while providing little aml value.
on the directive itself we found that the main areas of debate were how to deal with beneficial ownership gambling and politically exposed persons.
we worked hard to find good compromises.
it is well known that the uk has a special situation regarding trusts.
they provide the legal basis for a number of transactions and institutions such as property ownership estate planning wills and insurance.
the fact that they fall under the uk's common law system also adds complications and as a lawyer i am aware of the difficulties that this poses.
i have worked hard to find language that limits the risk of public exposure for vulnerable people and in cases where the trusts themselves pose little or no risk of money laundering such as in relation to wills.
it is a debate we repeatedly have in this house that the fight against crime must not be pursued at the cost of a person's right to privacy and in the absence of proportionality.
finally this is about making sure that our payment institutions and law enforcement bodies are better able to spot anomalies that occur in financial data and stop serious criminal activity.
citizens are looking to us to take action. to quote one of many a dutch lady the european parliament can stop criminals hiding money and robbing poor countries.
' so please help to reveal who is behind european companies and trusts.
criminals use such networks and operate on an increasingly international level further complicating transparency of ownership.
for us the social democrats full openness was a key priority.
we want a public register in full compliance with eu data protection rules.
another important element put forward by our group and adopted in committee concerns better witness protection.
even though we had a small hiccup in the sense that it took some time and conviction to include the british trust instrument i am nonetheless glad that we did because at the end of the day any sort of corporate structures and this can be likened to a corporate structure can be abused for money laundering and anything that can be abused for money laundering has to be included
we do not have any sort of influence on what happens to money that ends up there or on what sort of money gets out of there.
small on course bookies cannot be home to large scale money laundering.
this is the essence of our values and is also reflected in our trade policies where we find conditionalities for respect for human rights in relation to all countries across the world with which we have trade relations.
the israeli government is actually on a path to self isolation which is not working making bold statements that the eu should solve its own problems before addressing others.
as such it should be seen as a technical dossier.
nor do we want to allow products from the settlements to enter the eu market.
we also as members of this parliament attach a statement where we reiterate how important we think it is that israel respect human rights.
so let me just repeat once again that those who say that this is mostly a technical framework agreement are right;
thirdly the commission has also offered concrete assurances that this agreement is in conformity with legal commitments.
i have to add that it was made clear that no products originating from the so called occupied territories will be accepted.
it aims purely at facilitating the elimination of technical barriers to trade;
also it is something that should be judged on its trade merits alone.
let me stress last but not least that israel is a normal country;
all of these have been strong in their admonishment of israeli policies in relation to settlements the gaza blockade and the ensuing humanitarian crisis in the region the evictions of palestinians from their lands the demolition of homes and vital infrastructure the restrictions on freedom of movement the isolation of east jerusalem and the lack of progress on the peace process.
if we are to achieve a lasting solution there must be consequences for israel for the flagrant breaches of international law.
i would support the view that he puts forward.
enhancing the eu's partnership with israel at this time serves only to undermine our own eu's firm condemnation of israeli policy.