kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
that is why a fundamental review of the budget in the future is absolutely essential. we should make sure that the budget in the future meets our priorities.
secondly it is for this reason that the committee for regional development has encouraged the commission and member states not only to use the financial resources available to invest in what are cohesion policy two thousand and seven two thousand and thirteen priorities climate change knowledge and innovation energy efficiency renewable energy broadband sustainable urban transport and renewal of skills but also to promote the leverage function of the cohesion policy;
mr president i should like to make four points. firstly let me emphasise the need to use our two thousand and ten budget and in particular the european cohesion policy financial instruments with the utmost expediency in order to stimulate economic activity in all of the union's regions and cities and create the leverage necessary to revitalise member states' economies. cohesion policy is providing a strong and necessary bridge between recovery from the crisis and long term structural transformation of the european economy.
which is to efficiently use all the financial engineering tools which the cohesion policy has created in collaboration with the european investment bank in order to assist small and medium sized companies not only to survive this difficult period but first of all to go the distance to adapt to the changing face of the global economy which is transforming itself and to rise up to the challenge and the opportunity of climate change.
what i would like to do at this stage of the debate is to try and look at the big picture.
this particular budget is in consequence loaded with responsibility.
in fact it is loaded with the responsibility of being the budget of an institution which is particularly committed to transparency and accountability.
the particular significance of this transparency is that it can help to overcome the remoteness that exists between individuals and those who exercise power.
this remoteness i think we can all agree on this is an unavoidable feature of modern life so every institution should do what it can to bridge the gap.
on top of that there are difficult times ahead for europe and i think that enhances insecurity among citizens.
what we can do in this context is to illuminate the issues by promoting debate and discussion which should incidentally include disagreement.
from this perspective i think the budget is an excellent step in the right direction and i would like to give my strong support to it.
all budgets are supposed to be mirror images of some economic policy considerations.
instead it tries to justify an eu wide policy of neo keynesian demand management by spending more on a great majority of items without any underlying structural reforms.
take the example of the globalisation adjustment fund.
half a billion euros is supposed to be spent on mitigating the negative impact of globalisation. instead member states are having a hard time putting together rational proposals for a couple of tens of millions.
on the one hand it is a tremendous waste of scarce resources;
on the other hand it is a prime example of distorting the rules of creative destruction in capitalism.
it was a sign of bad planning.
nevertheless not only the decommissioning of kozloduy but even support for the construction of a new power plant would be more important than spending in the milk fund with this untimely and inefficient increase. as if it were part of a beneficial demand boost the eu bureaucracy gets undeserved and unnecessary wage increases.
when the eu is struggling with a once in a lifetime deep recession it is just not appropriate to shield ourselves and our own administration from the negative consequences.
would it not be more appropriate to accept even a nominal wage decline and hence boost employment in the name of european solidarity?
it is also a worrying sign of inadequate planning that the disparity between commitment and payment appropriations is growing in the case of a large number of items.
since we cannot incur a deficit we push more and more commitments to the future.
it is tantamount to mortgaging the future of the eu and undermining prospective discretionary spending beyond repair. many meps are concentrating on pet projects and pork barrel spending.
it is also very important to consider those who are already in the european union.
the directive states very clearly that we are talking about very big numbers of asylum seekers.
we are working on this regional protection programme as i said.
however it is an important part of a long term solution because whatever happens in syria we will need to have a long term plan for it.
of course some of them are in better shape than others as is well known.
we have also said that they must be given access to the asylum system when they come should they want to ask for asylum.
that gives not only honour for the past but also for the future. it is very important that we stand up and show solidarity towards the people who run away from the horrors in syria that we show solidarity towards the neighbouring countries towards each other in the european union and that we give those people shelter while at the same time working
for the moment there is not a lot of pressure on the european union.
that could be the case and that will have to be debated but it will require the consent of member states.
as we all know it could change very dramatically tomorrow.
for the moment i can tell you in this very closed assembly that the appetite is not huge. i very much agree with all of you who have referred to the very recent events in norway when the european union received the nobel prize.
we all see the horrible pictures from that country and of course now that christmas is approaching we know that so many civilians so many children will not be able to spend christmas in peace over there. we also know that a solution is not around the corner. i know that the international community and the ministers yesterday in the foreign affairs council have been trying to work on a political solution.
twenty thousand is not a very big number in twenty seven countries. we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people.
now the neighbourhood countries as all of you say are doing a fantastic job.
now this is the situation today.
of course that is also not for tomorrow but it is important for the long term statute here.
this seems to be the practice in member states not to send them back.
this is more of a long term strategy and it is not going to alleviate the pressure immediately.
with the international community and with all the member states to try and find a political solution to this horrible crisis.
people want to stay in the neighbourhood.
we also know that we could activate the temporary protection directive but that is still not the case.
we are in contact with them and seeing how we can help and yes of course we will mobilise more funds we will mobilise more help more assistance to the four countries in the neighbourhood who are dealing with the people who arrive there.
to avoid this exactly what are going to be the border or entry management procedures the family reunification measures the resettlement procedures?
therefore we are moving from more humanitarian assistance to clearly higher numbers of refugees who will come to the european union and who will then have to go to other countries within the european union. now in that event there has to be some strategy to avoid the kinds of sensitivities and political problems that we have seen elsewhere.
you have given some good answers but please go into some more depth because the humanitarian assistance is now going to give way to higher numbers of refugees coming to the european union as a result of this crisis.
i think colleagues want to see a wider deeper strategy.
please go into more depth on what the strategy is going to be given that there are not going to be immediate political solutions to this.
i think my colleague mr lpez aguilar talked about listening to your strategy.
this makes me think that the purpose of this oral question is to ask you to delve a bit deeper into understanding that there is no immediate political solution here.
for the moment while some countries are under pressure they are able to deal with applications from syrians.
we have also asked those potential member states to identify their needs and communicate them to
at the request of the member states affected up to
this is confirmed in practice by the recognition rate for syrian nationals throughout the eu of approximately ninety two in the second quarter
the current rules under the eu resettlement programme allow member states to choose to allocate a number of places under their planned pledging for the resettlement of refugees from a country in a region designated for a regional protection programme or for emergency resettlement.
the commission is already active in providing help to syria's neighbours in their efforts to cope with the refugees who have fled the in fighting in that country.
this has allowed member states to exchange views on the goal of aligning as far as possible their policies in response to asylum requests from syrian nationals. eu member states have confirmed their intention to provide adequate protection in particular by not returning syrian nationals staying in the eu to syria.
a regional protection programme is as you know a specific tool of long term capacity building in the area of international protection that aims at institution building as well as supporting sustainable solutions for refugees.
as you know nearly half a million people have sought refuge in the neighbouring countries from the atrocities in syria. turkey lebanon jordan and iraq have made formidable efforts to give those people shelter and more people are likely to flee.
the red crescent reports that some.
this would be the last resort.
we have also had meetings organised by the european asylum support office in recent months.
eur. nine eight million will be available under the european refugee fund in two thousand and thirteen to assist in addressing situations of particular pressure created by the sudden arrival of a number of persons who might be in need of international protection and thereby place exceptionally heavy and urgent demands on the reception facilities and asylum systems of the member states concerned.
there has been a wide consensus among member states that the majority of syrian applicants could be entitled to receive international protection either as a refugee as defined in the geneva convention or as a beneficiary of a subsidiary form of protection.
it is for each member state to decide individually whether they wish to make use of this possibility but i called on member states at the last ga council to do their utmost to respond to this.
but nevertheless these people are asking for shelter in the european union and that number could grow. we have taken action to prepare eu member states to deal with the consequences.
at political and technical level and some of these discussions have involved representatives of international organisations such as the unhcr and the iom which are the most active in syria.
we continue to monitor developments as we have been doing since the beginning of the crisis focusing in particular on the issue of humanitarian assistance to syrian nationals who are victims of the crisis.
the council has also been aware of the potential challenges to the member states of increasing migratory pressure from nationals fleeing from syria.
this programme is designed to cope with the specific situation in syria drawing on the experiences of similar programmes elsewhere.
while the overall numbers of syrian nationals who have fled to member states has so far remained relatively low some member states have begun to see a noticeable increase in the number of asylum applications.
given that there are no signs that the internal crisis in syria is likely to be resolved in the near future the council is also taking action to prepare for the medium and long term challenges which could result from a further increase in migratory pressure.
this is a trend which is likely to continue.
in october the council endorsed a proposal from the commission to establish a regional protection programme.
the issue has been discussed by ministers on several occasions and at the most recent meeting of the justice and home affairs council last week the council had the opportunity to hear a presentation from the united nations high commissioner for refugees setting out his latest assessment of the situation.
it will help enhance the capabilities of the authorities and of the organisations dealing with international protection and refugee issues and will provide lasting solutions as regards the plight of those who have been forced to leave the country.
we will continue to do what we can to try to bring an end to the crisis and to address the specific problems encountered by those fleeing from it.
the european union and its member states are together providing the largest contribution to the regional response plan for syrian refugees launched by the unhcr and other organisations in september.
in october the council confirmed the continuing commitment of the european union and its member states to provide humanitarian assistance to the affected population but it also emphasised the need for further funds and called for all donors to increase their contributions to the latest
many of them have been obliged to leave their homes and are currently displaced in other parts of syria or across the border in neighbouring countries such as turkey jordan lebanon and iraq. this issue has been addressed both
the council shares the concerns that many of you have about the seriousness of the situation in syria and in particular its impact on the civilian population.
we agree on the need to continue to address the humanitarian crisis arising from the conflict.
that means ensuring that the humanitarian assistance we are providing to persons displaced in syria itself and to refugees in the neighbouring countries is sufficient to meet their needs.
member states need to provide international protection for refugees from syria where appropriate and to continue to monitor the situation closely in order to be prepared for the possibility of a large scale arrival of refugees from the region in the european union.
as already indicated the council is constantly following the situation in syria and is kept regularly updated of the relevant developments by the external action service the commission frontex as well as the international organisations working on the ground in particular unhcr
the european asylum support office is also continuing to monitor developments relating to syria.
we also agree on the need to look for solutions in the medium and long term by establishing a tailor made regional protection programme for syria.
i am grateful to you for your support for the action which has already been taken to address the issue of migratory pressure as a result of this crisis.
the european union and member states will continue to provide humanitarian assistance and address the wider effects of the crisis.
yet people who are blind visually impaired or otherwise print disabled continue to face many barriers in accessing books and other print material which is protected by copyright and related rights.
whilst working on this subject i consulted with a cross section of stakeholders disability experts ngos working on disability issues and representatives from the author and publisher fields and all were largely in agreement with each other and stressed the importance of the speedy ratification of the treaty.
the marrakech treaty which allows for copyright exceptions to facilitate the creation of accessible versions of books and other copyrighted works for visually impaired people was a landmark move to enable visually impaired people to access books with the same ease as sighted readers.
i would like to thank all the people who have been working for this and i am calling on the european parliament to vote in favour of the implementation of the marrakech treaty because blind people deserve better access to books.
this will be of benefit in eu countries but the vast improvement will be in countries in latin america and then africa and other places where many people speak a european language.
most of the books that have been made accessible are in rich countries such as eu countries.
as parliament's negotiator i am very glad that we have reached a compromise that enables the removal of barriers to the sharing of books across countries. for many of us reading books is one of the most important things that we do
this is a treaty that the greens and indeed the whole european parliament have been fighting for for years.
today when you make a copy of a book into a format that blind people can read by for example reading it into a computer you are not allowed to send that book across a border because of copyright law.
most of them have very little access to books that they can read.
it creates a copyright exemption in international copyright law for the benefit of blind and visually impaired people so that they can have greater access to books.
this will make it easier to find a new favourite book.
most of the two hundred and eighty five million blind and visually impaired people in the world live in countries where there are very few books made accessible in a format that they can read.
mr president i am very glad to hear that there is so much unity about something that is this important.
it will take at least a year for the member states to implement this before we can ratify and start sharing books for blind people across borders.
i would also like to thank the maltese presidency for helping to find a good compromise. most importantly i would like to thank the european blind union which has been an immense asset in this work.
i would of course like to thank once again all the colleagues who have been working on this for years.
on platforms commissioner thank you for stepping back from the brink and not coming up with a new regulation but please be careful.
but now a store would have to work out whether or not they are complying with the national rules in all twenty eight countries and this could be very burdensome especially for smaller companies.
change in the intermediary liability could be very destabilising especially for smaller start ups in the shared economy and in e commerce.
and on media services our consumers love the diversity of new media new media services are not the same as traditional media offers and we need to make that distinction.
on geo blocking in traditional markets we do not force retailers to open their stores in all twenty eight markets.
platforms are growing because consumers like them and i want to see more platforms and more competition in platforms.
so instead of giving consumers more choice we just risk that smaller stores will not go online at all.
i heard your intervention hailing russian protectionism and the russian economy.
as we all know the russian economy is declining because it lacks inspiration and competition.
would you like to tell us how you look upon the development of welfare and prosperity in russia which i understand is a model for you? please come up and tell us about the protectionist lawless rude and capitalist robber market that we see in russia!
tell us about it and tell us about the prosperity for russians.
it has declined year after year and that's your model?
it has clear rules for banning geo blocking it addresses the concerns about the applicable law and the obligation to deliver it in a very clever way but unfortunately at the same time it also misses the core of the problem.
we all know that when we ask consumers what they think about geo blocking the first thing they think about is this video is not available in your country'. video is of course completely exempt from the regulation and apparently at the last minute other copyrighted content has also been removed from the obligation to ban geo blocking.
now you say that we will deal with copyright problems in copyright proposals but the problem with this is that there is a lot of geo blocking of copyrighted materials particularly videos that has nothing to do with copyright. so where will these issues be addressed?
i do not see anything in the audiovisual regulation that would address the geo blocking of videos that is not for copyright reasons.
i do not think it is ok just to say that it is a copyright problem because quite often it can simply be the seller who decides for commercial reasons that dividing the market will make him more money.
the first will boost cross border online trading across europe removing barriers raising consumer confidence and ending discrimination.
that i presented to this house in strasbourg one year ago. both are vital for a properly functioning digital single market across all countries of the european union.
let me begin with the e commerce package.
we want to open up the e commerce market so that it becomes truly pan european with fair conditions for consumers and business across the eu's internal borders.
while more and more goods and services are traded over the internet cross border online sales within the eu are only growing slowly.
consumers as well as businesses deserve better.
they should not be limited to their domestic markets.
they should be able to make the best of the opportunities offered by europe's single market in the digital age.
our package addresses three main areas.
first it will prevent unjustified discrimination online as well as offline.
in a true single market you should not be discriminated against based on your nationality residence or place of establishment.
but if a consumer comes to their online store they should be treated as if they were locals not treated differently.
but this would not include the obligation to deliver traders would not be required to deliver cross border but sell to them as to customers from their own country.
second it will increase transparency of parcel delivery prices encourage competition and make regulatory oversight of cross border parcel delivery services more effective.
this will help consumers get a better and affordable deal also a wider choice.
it will help small e retailers to reach new customers.
it will create more business for delivery providers.
and to be clear there is no intention of imposing a single price across europe.
third our package will raise consumer and sme trust in e commerce by clarifying the nature of unfair commercial practices and strengthening the enforcement of consumer rights across borders.
it will also strengthen cooperation between national consumer protection authorities.
together these measures aim to remove the main barriers to e commerce.
in a short time they have transformed our daily lives how we sell shop and travel;
they bring many benefits to consumers to wider society to industry business and smes.
the guiding principle and objective is to create the right conditions for platforms to innovate scale up and grow in the digital single market.
but they should do so in a fair and open atmosphere.
that means equal conditions for fair and open competition.
everyone involved in the market traditional and online service providers should play by the same rules with no discrimination. our assessment has shown that platforms are innovative have a positive impact on our economy and increase competitiveness.
it shows that the eu is quite good in areas such as the app economy health finance and the collaborative economy.
in order to thrive all platforms including european ones need a legal environment that gives them certainty.
this is why we are very clear in our communication there will be no horizontal new regulation or regulator for platforms.
we will not change the current e commerce framework and its liability provisions.
of course platforms as well as all internet providers and online intermediaries have to respect eu law and fundamental rights.
they also have to act responsibly regarding content and keep their activities transparent.
these are important principles.
this is why we are taking a problem driven approach.