kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we had a first round of discussions on the future egf on twenty seven february and i can assure the european parliament that the council will debate this proposal on its own merits.
already early on in the discussions on the extension of the crisis derogation for the current egf it was underlined that the extensions would not pre empt the negotiations on the future egf.
these are just a few examples.
others already have access to well developed aid mechanisms at national level and consider the egf contribution to be a useful but not essential complement to these mechanisms.
it continues to function as decided by our two institutions back in two thousand and six and the authors of the questions suggest that the council has come to the conclusion that the current crisis is over.
even though this now happens within a strong european policy framework the crisis derogation to the egf was introduced for a limited time as a supplementary instrument for helping combat some of the consequences of the crisis. when the commission put forward its proposal to extend the mechanism there was insufficient support within the council.
at the most recent meeting the other week heads of state and government concluded that tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the current crisis was one of the main priorities for.
two thousand and twelve it is of course primarily up to each member state to take the necessary measures and follow the policy it considers to be the most appropriate to combat unemployment.
there were a number of reasons expressed by member states as to why they were not ready to endorse the commission's proposal.
some member states underlined that the labour market policies lie firmly within national competence.
some felt it was inappropriate at a time of national austerity to introduce new unforeseen expenditure in the eu budget.
as president i regret that it was not possible to reach an acceptable compromise.
under these conditions we came to the conclusion that further negotiations on crisis derogation could hinder progress on the future egf.
as you know these negotiations take place within the context of the wider negotiations on the new multiannual financial framework.
i look forward both to hearing your views on this issue this morning as well as to the further work which will be needed between our two institutions as we seek to make progress in the negotiations.
of course there were also a significant number of member states who supported the proposal.
however the epsco council in december failed to reach agreement on any of the compromise proposals tabled.
you talked about some problems with the proposal and you mentioned farmers.
forty one eight and that is increasing in the medium term so even from that perspective the fund is delivering.
if you look at the mid term evaluation of the egf you will see that it delivers significant added value.
are there some aspects or provisions in the fund which they object to?
the average in the eu twenty seven is.
we have already heard the arguments here today about the crisis.
we know the crisis is not over but what i again find astonishing is just one figure that of youth unemployment.
i cannot make any sense of that and i really would like to hear an explanation from the relevant member state.
are there any other issues that are causing problems within the council with regard to the new egf application?
do they believe that the fund does not deliver added value?
i suppose my other question to you is is this just an objection to social action in the first place? my final question is about the new egf proposal.
of course there are improvements which could be made but the reintegration rate into employment is.
this would be the equivalent to forty five zero job losses in germany. we spent the morning discussing that fiscal consolidation must be accompanied by a jobs and growth strategy.
mr president i wish to express my opposition to the removal of the crisis derogation from the globalisation fund and i would urge the council to work with the minority of blocking member states and ask them to reconsider their position and arrive at a conclusion. in ireland between two thousand and nine and two thousand and eleven seventy of the applications for the egf fund were crisis related.
if we are to do more than pay lip service to this we need to ensure that the crisis derogation is retained for the egf funding.
that was not possible and now we will be working on the future of the egf.
i will be looking forward to constructive cooperation with this house.
i would also like to make it very clear that the danish presidency and the council are firmly committed to combating the crisis as we know it because as many members in this chamber have made clear the crisis is not over yet.
therefore it is important that we continue to reform the single market and that we use the euros in the mff as wisely as possible to make sure that growth and job creation will be on the agenda especially for young people.
mr president first of all i would like to thank everybody for their contributions.
they will continue to engage on the next mission in april and on subsequent occasions. by the way contrary to some allegations the commission did not force ireland to cut the minimum wage or social expenditure. these measures were already presented by the former irish government itself in its national recovery plan together with other fiscal and structural measures aiming at economic stability
since the mou is not adopted on the basis of article one hundred and fifty three this limit does not apply. the provisions of title ten social policy cannot be disregarded. they have to be taken into account but it does not mean that as a consequence of article one hundred and fifty
more generally the issue of economic policy conditions is not about eu competences in the field of social policy or
three no measures having an effect on pay can be adopted on the basis of article. one hundred and twenty two the measures adopted on the basis of article one hundred and twenty two for ireland do not regulate issues.
we will do the job ourselves but please do not expect the irish people to carry a burden that they are not capable of carrying.
what they have done is not just for ireland but also for europe and the eurozone in particular.
this should come about as soon as possible and i urge the commission to really look at this at an early date.
we should note that the new government has agreed to reverse the reduction in the minimum wage.
one of the issues high up on the agenda of the new programme for government will be the renegotiation of elements of the eu imf programme of support to ireland.
at present many irish people fear that the conditions agreed by the then government in the eu imf programme of support are too stringent and place a heavy burden on ordinary citizens who have had to bear the brunt for the mistakes of the banks both irish and european and the government.
nine hundred and eighty s many of the difficult conditions as laid out by the eu imf programme are necessary if we are to restore healthy public finances.
in fact they have taken other people's responsibilities as well because we were given no alternative.
i welcome the commission's support for an interest rate reduction as stated by commissioner rehn.
it is not eu action in the respective fields.
the role of the mou is to specify the economic policy conditions that serve as a benchmark for assessing the irish policy performance during the financial assistance programme. the member state has full ownership of these economic policy conditions and their implementation.
i am fully confident that the review will be carried out by the irish government in a way that recognises the importance of social dialogue includes all the social partners and complies with community
the motivation of the review is to discuss the fairness and efficiency of employment conditions for both employees and employers across sectors.
the aim of the conditions relating to labour market policy is to create jobs and to avoid long term unemployment in ireland amongst the most vulnerable groups.
the minimum wage reduction is part of this wider package of measures and needs to be seen together with activation policies and efforts to modernise the benefit system.
however the economic adjustment programme for ireland is not a social policy programme and is not adopted under article.
these conditions are commitments of the member state that are undertaken by the state itself.
e. before the crisis. the other condition mentioned in the question is an independent review of sectoral collective bargaining.
the only honest answer to that is that these things cannot be reconciled and the problem is that these things have now as a result of the annual growth survey become the general rule.
the memorandum goes on to insist on cuts in social welfare the roll back of key public services and reductions in public sector employment and public sector pensions.
they will not tolerate the far reaching implications for social policies with lower wages lower employment protection weak social standards reduced public services and the imposition of higher retirement ages.
i do not believe that this interference can be justified. the treaty requires the commission to promote social dialogue not undermine it.
the people will reject the idea of a europe based only on austerity.
if we want to continue to swell the ranks of anti europeanism then carry on commission.
how can those demands be justified in relation to a treaty that requires the union to aim to eliminate inequalities promote a high level of employment guarantee adequate social protection and fight against social exclusion?
article one hundred and fifty two requires respect for the autonomy of social partners not this type of interference and article one hundred and fifty three expressly excludes eu action in the field of play. the commission cannot pick and choose the hierarchy of articles in this respect.
and what about article twenty eight in the charter of fundamental rights under which workers have the rights to negotiate and conclude collective agreements and in the cases of conflicts of interest to take collective action to defend their interests including strike action? many irish workers would see that they are in that position at the moment.
who decides when articles of the treaty are in conflict or when the commission acts in such a way as to bring those articles into conflict with one another?
citizens see what is happening.
finally my main question commissioner is who decides?
why then was there no effort to reduce or eliminate bank bonuses?
another question for you commissioner are you stating that the memorandum of understanding was entirely the responsibility of the irish government and that the commission acquiesced or agreed?
finally let us assume here you have the power to do all of this and you are telling us you have;
they see how the commission is working in this whole process and what they see is that it is those on the minimum wage those who are in collective agreements are being hit with these austerity plans.
is it the court of justice?
why was there no effort to ensure that those at the top of the salary scale paid their fair share?
how do we deal with the contradiction between the different articles in the treaty?
you may be unhappy with that but that is going to happen.
mr president the memorandum of understanding in relation to labour market issues is very clearly based on a simplistic economic theory that lower wages will clear the market' in other words end unemployment.
if you want to look at why we have had more layoffs than wage cuts in ireland that is the basis of it.
it is not supported by practice on the ground.
as has already been stated the irish government of which my party is a member has already declared that it will reverse the minimum wage cut as agreed in that programme.
i would appeal to the commission to comply with european law and stop interfering in labour market issues in ireland.
and i would draw the commission's attention to the forfs review of labour cost competitiveness in ireland produced late last year which says that firms generally prefer layoffs to pay cuts because they harm morale less.
indeed they are the basis of the fact that there has been no violence on the streets in ireland it is because the social partners and the government have sat down and made arrangements to adjust the labour market and adjust conditions to ensure that we can have some hope of recovery from the current crisis.
in fact it is in decline and that programme has to be generally renegotiated.
only a month ago i reminded the house that pensions were exclusively the competence of the member states and here we go again using the same language of coordination and retirement setting mechanisms. now pensions are almost always related to earnings so do we see here an attempt to harmonise wages?
i hope not because the treaties also say that wages are an exclusive competence of the member states.
as an example think climate' keeping a house warm near the arctic circle needs much more money than in mediterranean countries.
a harmonised wage and pensions policy is not just a dream;
it is illegal.
leave it as the treaties demand to the competence of elected governments like mine at westminster and like that in ireland.
mr president i understand the urgency of the commission in addressing the economic crisis and the high levels of debt which are a threat for the stability of the euro.
i understand that conditions are imposed on countries that have to make use of the european financial stability mechanism.
however it seems to me that the commission is being quite selective in the measures and conditions it deems permitted in this crisis.
on the one hand nearly any measure seems legal when it comes to fiscal consolidation by cutting expenditure.
as soon as ireland made use of the rescue package minimum wages and pension levels were the first variables to be adjusted despite the fact that these matters explicitly are not eu competences.
on the other hand the commission hides itself behind the lack of eu competence to leave the exceptionally low irish corporation tax untouched whereas increasing this could also substantially improve public revenues in ireland.
i understand that this crisis requires exceptional measures but why is the commission in such a hurry to adjust minimum wages affecting workers who earn the least while we have to wait and see about measures that make the banking and financial sector pay?
i strongly get the feeling that the commission is interpreting the eu's competences in a very one sided and dare i say it right wing manner.
the eu can only regain confidence if the commission shows the same determination in setting proper minimum social standards and social guarantees for the heavy cuts imposed on people.
yes we do want economic governance but we want balanced governance with both fiscal sustainability and social guarantees.
the new rules will ensure that all the relevant data is collected following a cost benefit approach and without duplication of effort thus reducing the administrative burden.
the improvement in data collection will enable the maximum sustainable yield to be evaluated more reliably and ensure long term sustainability as laid down in the basic regulation.
two thousand under this framework the member states collect manage and make available a wide range of biological environmental technical and social economic data on fishing aquaculture and processing sectors needed for scientific advice.
the agreement we are discussing today includes an improved framework for gathering extensive and reliable information and making it available at regional and european level.
when important modifications are needed member states will need to resubmit the work plans for approval in the normal way.
the current multiannual programme for data collection will remain applicable until replaced by a new one.
i will make sure i give a full account of this discussion to commissioner vella.
member states will already have started collecting data accordingly.
in summary by the end of two thousand and seventeen we expect the new legal framework for data collection to be operational for collecting all data needed for what i take to be our shared objective the effective implementation and monitoring of the cfp.
the member states' work plans for data collection were approved last summer.
the current multiannual programme was adopted last summer and it was already updated with many of the new requirements.
we provided for transitional arrangements so that immediately after adoption and publication of the recast there is no legal vacuum.
meanwhile member states have already started to transition from regional coordination meetings to regional coordination groups ensuring more continuity and better involving the relevant end users in data collection.
we actually already have that information and that has led to a damaging impact on communities and cultures.
what is actually required is a complete overhaul and revision of the existing european union fisheries policies before this is even started.
this report and i emphasise an uncosted proposal outlines a big data response.
in that respect we stress the importance of the new framework for data collection the obligation of the member states on collection storage protection and provision of data and cooperation within and between the member states.
the new rules on data collection are intended to align this framework with the requirements of the reformed common fisheries policy. one of the things of particular importance to the greens is sustainable fishing to keep stocks above levels that can reduce maximum sustainable yield this. is respecting the objectives of the cfp as provided in article two reliable. stock assessment including fmsy is essential to establish fisheries conservation measures and to ensure that fishing is environmentally sustainable and economically profitable.
we need reliable comprehensive and long term data for the purpose of decisions on fisheries management and for the protection of ecosystems including vulnerable species and habitats.
it has been said that if you do not measure it you cannot manage it and management of our fish stocks is of critical importance for the stocks themselves and for the livelihood of our fishing communities.
the european parliament and the council recognised this at the time of the adoption of the common fisheries policy making a common declaration calling on the commission to fast track the review of the data collection framework.
the commission delivered and today i am happy to see that we have reached a political agreement on the new regulation which can finally be adopted and published. this will enable the scientific institutions in member states to start collecting the necessary data for all the new requirements of the cfp.
this has been possible thanks to this house's will to tackle efficiently such a technical subject.
we can now move one step forward towards enhancing regional cooperation in data collection which has been an important objective of the cfp reforms.
the data collection framework is essential for the implementation of the cfp as it provides the basic data for scientific advice on fishing quotas and on impact assessments for the evolution of eu fisheries. the recast was focused on two main issues.
first to ensure delivery on cfp reform objectives providing the scientific data necessary for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture while protecting the marine ecosystem and reducing discards and at the same time achieving economic social unemployment benefits and food security. second
to simplify the current system collect only what is needed remove overlaps and reduce the number of rules at eu level.
overall as has been recognised the current framework has proven to be fit for purpose and therefore the basic principles will not change.
eu multiannual programmes are agreed and adopted at eu level and then implemented by national work plans in which member states divide tasks amongst themselves.
basic data storage will remain at member state level and member states will remain responsible for ensuring that good quality data is available to end users such as the international council for the exploration of the sea.
an important issue that was debated in the final stages between parliament and council was the adoption procedure for the multiannual programmes on data collection which define the detailed data requirements the list of scientific surveys at sea and thresholds for the obligation to collect data.
we are satisfied with the final compromise which splits up the multiannual programme in a delegated act for the data requirements and implementing acts for the thresholds and the list of surveys. thank you to the rapporteur for his work on this and for the opportunity this morning to discuss this important subject.
just a small question do you not think that this is a french and spanish plot to keep control of british fishing waters after brexit?
due process of law excludes military commissions.
the wikileaks files have now given an even clearer picture of the grossest abuses of human rights that have taken place there the widespread use of waterboarding other forms of brutal torture to extract confessions and information and they also revealed that hundreds of people were held in guantnamo with no real evidence against them.
this hell hole must be shut down immediately with all of the current detainees having access to fair trial before a civilian court all of the secret cia torture prisons in europe must be shut down the use of shannon airport in ireland for military and rendition flights by the cia must be ended and the barbaric death penalty must be brought to.
yet barrack obama has not only ditched his promise to shut that horrific prison but has now approved the resumption of military trials for detainees.
mr president the hypocrisy of the imperialist powers and their double speak about human rights is demonstrated most graphically behind the wire in guantnamo bay.
president obama has yet to deliver on his promise and to close guantnamo an area where eu member states could and should have assisted him more.
not only would it be a disgrace to the us human rights record to put him on death row but it could be totally counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.
mr president europe stands right against capital punishment. it should be abolished and the eu particularly the high representative and the upcoming polish presidency and all the member states must firmly demand that the us exclude the death penalty as an option in the first military commission trial for a guantnamo detainee.
it is time to set the record right;
but congress should also help him and press him to reverse this decision to reinstate the military commission system as it offers no guarantee of a fair trial and it must also reverse the decision to keep in indefinite detention detainees against whom no charges are brought.
gave the explanation that he was in afghanistan in order to take a computer course.
however i put it to the house that the cause of individual liberty under the law in the world would be better served if parliament took more interest in the operations of the european arrest warrant.
of course this parliament is strongly concerned about individual liberty and the due process of law and rightly so but we should recognise that some detainees do present a problem. for example there was a british citizen who when arrested on the battlefield in afghanistan carrying weapons and wearing the black turban of the taliban
mr president no one will disagree that terrorism needs to be prevented and that suspects need to be tried and held accountable brought to justice in a fair trial but in the so called war on terror we risk compromising precisely those freedoms and values that we claim to defend against destruction through terrorism.
if we allow the erosion of fundamental rights and principles we will have allowed the terrorists to win.
if we act unjustly we are less credible and even weak.
the declaration of the end of the war on terror was one of the first landmarks by president obama.