kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
g twenty leaders in china pointed to the progressing global economic recovery while recognising that growth was still weaker than desirable and that downside risks remained.
i am also satisfied with the endorsement of the proposal for objective criteria to identify non cooperative jurisdictions with respect to tax transparency and with the objective to prepare by july two thousand and seventeen a list of jurisdictions that have not yet sufficiently progressed towards a satisfactory level of implementation
this is recognised in the hangzhou action plan which summarises the main commitments by g twenty members.
accordingly leaders declared their determination to use all policy tools monetary fiscal and structural individually and collectively to achieve the intended growth.
the objective is to establish an eu list of such jurisdictions and explore defensive measures at eu level in the tax as well as in the non tax area to be endorsed by the council by the end of this year.
the g twenty therefore emphasised the need to communicate the benefits of trade and open markets more effectively and to ensure that the benefits of trade are spread more widely.
g twenty leaders therefore agreed to establish a global forum on steel access capacity which should report to the relevant g twenty ministers in.
i will focus on issues which i find are of particular relevance from the point of view of the council including migration the global economy trade taxation and climate.
we need to deal with them hopefully together but at least together with democratic nations.
i also appreciate that china committed itself to free trade and to fight protectionism and of course the decision to set up a global monitoring entity for the over production of steel is highly relevant especially nowadays for europe. in this respect it would be interesting to know from the commissioner
ttip will end up in the bin as the french and german ministers have already publicly announced that it is dead in the water.
member states have their hands tied behind their backs because an unelected commission is deciding for you.
of course you do have your secret ttip negotiations and how is that going by the way?
all the while the eu has no trade deal with major markets around the world.
obama will soon leave office and a new us government will be more than happy to sign a trade deal with the uk just like the rest of the world.
i hope my country reopens trade negotiations with russia and we will continue to have a good relationship with it.
your friend obama tries to push through ttip and that mostly serves the interests of multinationals. it does not serve the people.
you exclude russia because of your stupid sanctions.
india and australia representing major markets have already shown their interest in a free trade deal.
i bet the uk will have a trade deal with all major economies across the globe before the eu and yes even with the usa.
nothing was said about the need to fulfil western sanctions against russia which is breaking international rules.
we see this very much in russia and in china who say they will not follow international court decisions.
it could have been an important meeting in this perspective but very little came out of it. and what came out of it did so because all the crucial problems that the global world order is facing were avoided.
nothing was said either about the need to enhance legal certainty for investments in the global order.
i dare say that we as a union have a clearly defined interest in those areas but i think that the g twenty summit in china has reminded us once again that this is maybe the time for us to pull together as a union to work on those items in order to have an even better position when we try to protect the interests of the union and its citizens
tax evasion steel china the paris agreement and many others. i tried to present how we viewed the discussion on those issues in my initial statement. i share the views expressed by commissioner moscovici when he spoke on behalf of the commission. all these items are extremely
i believe this is the place where we member states together with the commission should assess where we stand in negotiations with the united states.
and then there were the comments made by president obama that a trade deal between the us and the eu will be a priority over any trade deal with the uk followed by the warning from the japanese that their firms could pull out of the uk if there was no single market access.
with the focus of the meeting on economic growth trade and investment and with the uk's decision to exit the eu until that exit is concluded uncertainty will exist in all of these areas.
i urge the british government to listen to take action and to ensure that britain can maintain what it has in accessing five hundred million consumers in twenty seven different countries with one single set of rules ensuring certainty for business and the highest standards for consumers.
we do not even know almost three months on since the referendum result whether the uk's negotiating position will prioritise access to the eu single market a single market critical to the health of the british economy critical to british jobs and i would say critical to britain's national interest.
by all accounts this year's g twenty summit was dominated by a new and overriding awareness.
' these precisely are the big issues that president junker and his commission must directly tackle with the utmost urgency and full priority or see the european project disintegrate under the tidal wave of widespread and completely justified popular protest.
' some of this awareness has found its way in the final communiqu which states quality employment is at the centre of the g twenty 's domestic and global agenda together with reducing inequalities and promoting inclusive labour force participation.
i very much hope that it can be a beacon for europe encouraging other european countries to take back control of their politics at a national level and make good use of the extra social solidarity that the nation state provides.
madam president it is good that countries meet to talk things through. it is even good that the eu for so long as it exists tags along for the ride. but let us be clear summits in china are not going to solve the key problems facing europe namely economic stagnation and the social disruption caused by uncontrolled irregular and largescale immigration from africa and asia.
the eu's representatives will keep going to g twenty summits but every year they will be pushed a little further out to the fringes in the family photograph. the awkward truth is that with every passing year the failing eu and its members count for less in the world.
we have had fifteen years to find this out and every year provides us with more evidence.
mr moscovici is right to say that the uk will remain a decisive european country in the years ahead.
only by harnessing this can european voices command the influence in the world that our great continent deserves.
so long as the euro remains growth across its members will be weak.
this is where europe should assume its own responsibility as an important actor in the international community. one key message deriving from the g twenty summit and more generally from the global economic situation is that we need more growth and that we cannot expect only developing countries to be the ones leading the process.
it is translated into concrete provisions in the economic partnership agreements including a great deal of asymmetry in the commitment and obligations in measures promoting regional integration and in a number of special measures and safeguards.
on economic partnership agreements i share the view that trade should support and serve development objectives.
these provisions allow our acp partners to promote their industrial development and protect their infant industries food security and natural resources.
i share the view expressed by the rapporteur mr goerens that we have successfully managed to extend our exchanges and work beyond purely technical and administrative matters.
we would be ready to work with our partners to assess the economic partnership agreements' functioning and implementation in order to maximise their trade and development potential.
let me now move to the important recommendations made in this report to the commission.
epas also ensure long term free access for all products to the eu market.
we have heard our developing partners say on many occasions that they want trade and investment even more than our development money.
the european union has regularly engaged with acp countries on human rights including non discrimination on lgbti issues and we are determined to do so in the future. some honourable members have had direct experience of acp reluctance to discuss this issue. i agree with you that we must find the best way to pursue dealing with this issue and i will continue working with you to this end. this will
this is unparalleled in any other trade arrangements and is a key for investors' location and sourcing decisions.
on european development fund programming i am happy that parliament is now providing comments on edf programming documents and i am confident that this new practice will improve the effectiveness and accountability of our development policy.
the european union also supports the related reform and adjustment process and helps acp countries to develop their trade capacities enhance their competitiveness and make themselves less vulnerable to risks.
on policy coherence for development i can only welcome the proposal that the joint parliamentary assembly should appoint two standing co rapporteurs on pcd because it is one of the commission's main priorities.
this is a vision i will pursue working closely with trade commissioner malmstrm. the development objective has been the core objective of the epa process from its very beginning.
to include traditional grounds for non discrimination in line with provisions by which acp countries are bound under international conventions.
at the time the acp states firmly opposed including lgbti rights on this list.
i have no doubt that together we will find innovative ways to strengthen our cooperation with the acp countries in coherence with the new challenges of our times. the forthcoming public consultation process on post cotonou would be an opportunity to thoroughly analyse the failure and success of the current agreement
it would also provide the necessary input and guidance for negotiations on the future eu acp post two thousand and twenty framework for development and economic cooperation.
the joint parliamentary assembly is indeed a unique and general forum for discussing key development and political issues thus connecting people in europe and in our partner countries through their directly elected representatives.
in terms of its effects on the sustainable social and economic development of the acp countries.
at a time when families can barely put food on the table the political elite of the eu are taking lavish holidays on their behalf.
it has become increasingly apparent that the acp eu joint parliamentary assembly which supposedly started as a force of good has become nothing more than a front for lavish holidays and massaging egos.
it is time for britain to leave the eu and start putting food back on the tables of the british people.
do we have to understand that you are against the uk's close cooperation with all these countries?
i believe there is a need for a harmonised system that is eu wide to put an end to different security measures being taken at member state level leading to anomalies that are confusing inefficient and discriminatory.
but the question we have to ask is are we as a parliament prepared to throw out all the good things that are in that report purely on this issue?
members from other committees may feel that individual liberties should take priority over security and that is their right.
in my view that would be wrong.
if you look at both the de grandes pascual report and the commission's proposal you will see that ninety of what this parliament demanded has been incorporated into those commission proposals.
but for me there is no greater civil liberty than for people to fly safely and securely without fear of being blown up without fear of terrorist attack which is why i am happy to agree with the commission's proposals.
measures. the role of the european union in aviation security and the ability to set common eu standards would be diminished.
amendments to the methods of screening fall within the scope of the comitology procedure as established in the existing framework regulation on aviation security.
these conditions are in line with the advice given by the fundamental rights agency and the european data protection supervisor and provide all the necessary safeguards for the protection of fundamental rights privacy and data protection.
passengers must be fully informed about the technology and of the conditions of the security scanning.
person and must be blurred or obscured to prevent the identification of the face of the passenger.
these safeguards address fundamental rights concerns by protecting the person's dignity and privacy and guarantee the protection of personal data.
it is important now to move forward on this file. parliament passengers member states and the aviation industry have been waiting for a clear position for a
the ordinary legislative procedure would not be appropriate to achieve this objective. the result would be that member states would take national
regarding the procedure while we understand your interest the commission does not believe that this draft measure should be adopted through the ordinary legislative procedure.
they are now obsolete but you pay a yearly maintenance.
this is another example of you saying one thing and asking people to do another.
we have a shortage of money.
why has the commission missed this big opportunity to secure both technological advance and privacy?
whatever is said about blurring or the reviewer being distant and so on that is the fundamental problem and potential assault on both privacy and dignity.
it may well be that at the moment there is only one supplier of stick images but as has been said once the regulations are set you can be absolutely sure that other suppliers will pile into the market. therefore i find the commission decision frankly incomprehensible on both privacy and indeed technological grounds. we can have effective and more sophisticated security scanners that fully meet the privacy concerns not only of the parliament but the european data protection supervisor the fundamental rights agency and so on.
you are still going to capture a naked body image.
you have got the possibility of stick images with no human intervention.
but what i think many of us in this debate are saying is that it is not necessary to choose between the two.
we know that there is available technology which the commission has failed to support that would better ensure privacy in the shape of stick figure machines.
do you accept that it is possible to reconcile security and privacy?
there is no disagreement between the commission and parliament on the inclusion of body scanners as an additional security measure in the fight against terrorism.
however i still have some concerns about the way we are moving forward. we know that technology is already available which addresses the health privacy and data protection concerns of screened passengers and would avoid passenger exemptions.
yet the implementing measures produced by the commission have failed to specify that the body image must be in the form of a stick figure which colleagues have already raised.
nor does it specify that backscatter radiation equipment is unacceptable to this parliament especially when there are effective alternatives.
in addition commissioner we need to raise our game in the areas of cross border intelligence counter terrorism measures the use of central reservation systems and not least passenger profiling in order to identify potential terrorists before they even reach our airports.
it is essential that we find a more sophisticated way forward in the fight against terrorism.
to achieve one stop security we must have uniform rules applied in a harmonised and coherent manner across europe.
mr president first of all i am not sure what a canard is but i will say this as far as i am concerned we all share the need for security and we all share the need for civil liberties to be protected.
but what we have to get is a balance and what i think we have sometimes is a debate that focuses on the civil liberties issue rather than on the issue of aviation security.
the commission proposal does allow for body image technology to be used but the image is to be blurred and obscured and of course the images will be remote.
these must be proportionate and must also fall within what is deemed to be proportionate measures.
it does set minimum standards.
but the s d reiterate the request made in july that common rules on the use of security scanners must be revised on a regular basis and when necessary adapted to improve the protection of fundamental rights health privacy and personal data in line with technological progress.
but on balance the advantages prevail in terms of increasing security for our passengers and aircraft in non intrusive ways.
and as regards the comments from the commission about them not choosing the technology which we understand we have raised enough points here to say we all know about competition for technology and if any company wants to compete then they have to be there first.
are they going to try and stop young people studying the works of plato shakespeare oscar wilde walt whitman tennessee williams tchaikovsky and others the music of elton john or idolising tennis greats such as martina navratilova?
madam president can i say as a gay man i am proud that this house and others are speaking out against this proposed law.
the british conservatives introduced in great britain a similar law in. one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight it was recognised then and recognised now that these laws lead to censorship and the promotion of discrimination and homophobia discrimination and homophobia which destroys people's lives and blights the souls of those who practise it. the proposed law has been condemned by ngos including the international lesbian and gay association the council of europe and amnesty international as well as others.
it also interestingly breaches the un convention on the rights of the child in that it encourages discrimination against young lesbians and gay people.
that is a vile misrepresentation.
so i say to lithuanians and people across europe reject this dangerous step back to the past.
the love of one human being for another is never lessened by gender or sexuality it is love.
lesbians and gay men are ordinary men and women made extraordinary by extremists' preoccupation with our sex lives and the defamation that lesbians and gay men are a threat to society.
any civilised society is judged not by how it treats its majority but how it treats its minorities.
it affects young lesbians and gay men teachers public officials and could be used to prevent young people having access to any material films books plays works of art created by a gay man or a lesbian.
it will affect the very way young people and others speak think and act.
this proposed law will clearly breach eu treaties on human rights particularly article six as well as the employment framework directive and general policies on non discrimination.
young people need education not isolation; they need to understand the world in all its diversity and be taught respect for those who are different.
this law has little if anything to do with the protection of children.
still it is difficult to believe that the adoption of such a law is possible in an eu country at the beginning of the twenty first century.
if this is not our slide to state sponsored homophobia and criminalisation of public expression of our gay and lesbian citizens what is it then?
it is about european values.
we put in the oral question and we have also drafted a joint resolution about the lithuanian law which is allegedly about the protection of minors.
it will expose young and vulnerable gay lesbian and transgender people to bullying and exclusion.
it will therefore lead to immeasurable distress and suffering by young people the very people that this law is designed to protect.
i think that is very important because the european commission should not only intervene when market rules are being violated but also and in particular when european values are being violated.
we cannot tolerate discrimination. europe is a community of values values which i know are shared by the majority of our lithuanian fellow citizens.
we are all europeans.
with reference to the resolution colleagues i would ask for your explicit support for the resolution and in particular for the amendment that seeks to insert a reference to the existing anti discrimination directives because i think that is the very minimum.
i also ask for your support for the request in the resolution to ask the fundamental rights agency for a legal opinion on this law.
we have free public transportation.
we should eliminate both because this is not the time to do this.
i use the tram every day.
i think that is an important principle and one we would all want to support.
the compromise reached here was to reduce the figure allocated for office holders down from eur.
i would hope those savings would include changes in the way we do things rather than just making cuts.
this will give the european parliament the chance to shape the budget but also to shape our priorities and to identify savings ourselves but in the meantime we should continue to work to ensure that our budget for two thousand and eleven is acceptable to members to this parliament and of course to the public as well.
i believe it is important in the future that if the bureau does come forward and i hope it will with efficiency savings proposals that it is discussed with members at an early stage.
i think the other controversial issue for us which is outstanding is the office holders allowance.
i hope that in the future the bureau will come forward with recommendations and proposals not only about spending but also about ways in which we can make efficiency savings in the future.
i believe the majority of the sd group will find those compromises acceptable to them. one thing however has also become clear in our discussions on the two thousand and eleven budget and that is if we are to fund extra responsibilities in the future because of the lisbon treaty we must also find efficiency savings elsewhere.
colleagues themselves will decide whether these two compromises are acceptable to them or not.
this house should demand that council end the strasbourg circus and save annual costs of over eur two hundred million. a further eur fifty million would be saved every year by closing the european parliament offices in each of our countries.
there are many ways in which this could be done.
any other organisation in straitened times would meet new priorities with compensating reductions elsewhere.
we seem to think that we live in a different world.
we should be talking about massive savings not increases.
in the present situation is it acceptable that while they demand power to control national budgets the european institutions want to increase their own administrative budgets as is the case with this parliament?
is it ethically acceptable for parliament to rush out its approval of the council's two thousand and eight accounts in exchange for the latter's approval of parliament's budget increases?
these votes ladies and gentlemen of europe the ones for parliament's budget and the council's discharge are representative of the ethics of the institutions that aim to govern all of us.
but today i will refer to the ethics of this house.
is it acceptable that the eu institutions go to the court of justice over the council's decision to moderate the increase in salaries of eu civil servants?