kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we are all conscious of the responsibility our governments have to protect journalists and defend media freedom.
you describe a series of nations and scenarios in those nations that appear to be talking about something riddled with corruption and whole systems that don't seem to work.
would you agree with me then that if we are talking about huge sums of taxpayers' money going through the eu to be distributed into these kind of systems there is a basic flaw in the system whereby you are actually slushing money into a system which is then being stolen effectively by criminal organisations be they state sponsored or oligarchs?
this was a difficult delegation and i think we both express our shock and sympathy to the family and friends of jn kuciak and his fiance martina kunrov for their loss and we did so at their residence which was a very moving moment.
i think the entire delegation understood in that moment that this attack to silence journalists has shocked the entire country and it is right that the european union sends a delegation and tries to understand why this silencing of journalists anywhere in the eu is in fact an existential threat both to that country and to the european union as has been expressed.
together with my colleague ms grle we had the task of trying to understand what was happening in the country.
we spoke to journalists to ngos to representatives of the protesters right through to the prime minister president and all of the ministers and as ms grle will say to the highest audit and agricultural payment agencies' authorities.
but this debate centres very much on the question of press freedom.
what i would have to say is that from the journalists we understood that they regard themselves as free to express what they want to express.
but also in our investigation we understood that there were also threats existing before jn kuciak was murdered and this investigation is an urgent one.
for this reason as commissioner king has mentioned there is a lot of cooperation with outside agencies.
but we would urge not just assistance from europol but we would request and we did request in slovakia that there is a joint investigation team and that there is that level of urgency and an opening of the investigation so that there is maximum trust and people see that the investigation is as open and as trusted as it can be.
the question of fundamental rights and press freedom is one for this whole house and indeed for the commission and council to consider.
what happened to jn kuciak is something that we will investigate over the coming days the connections between the allegations of corruption that we investigated without fear or favour.
in the final sentence if i may i would just say that we will make those observations clear in our report.
but i would say that if we have to protect journalists either in slovakia or the rest of the eu we will do it.
so how can the investigation into his murder be independent if the very people he was targeting are in charge of that?
our words of condemnation must now be followed by a strong response from the law enforcement authorities.
we are confident that the slovakian law enforcement authorities assisted by europol as well as teams from several countries will be capable of upholding the rule of law in the face of this brutal murder.
the former commissioner who was dismissed with a scathing report never faced charges and was actually made an adviser to the prime minister. what does the commission have to say about that?
was he killed because of his work? because exposing wrongdoing is likely to get some very powerful people really upset maybe even upset to kill for. just months earlier daphne caruana galizia was also killed.
two journalists killed in the european union because they did their job scrutinising those in power. those killings are an attack on democracy and it doesn't just affect maltese or slovakian democracy but it affects the european union as a whole.
on the one hand the legislative framework is solid.
the basic democratic institutional structures are in place and media and civil society are vibrant and critical.
on the other hand there is a parallel reality of corruption fraud state capture and organised international crime.
in this shady world it's very difficult to distinguish between truth half truths lies and imagination.
this uncertainty creates a climate of deep distrust and frustration of citizens with the public institutions.
it's therefore crucial that the murder investigation is independent.
i strongly advocate the full involvement of europol and not just to provide technical expertise but with full access to the files.
then commissioner i hear what you're saying i've heard it before the european commission has very little powers to intervene.
well i disagree with that.
we have discussed it often.
but this would finally be the opportunity to put forward a legislative proposal for a really strong mechanism for an annual health check for democracy the rule of law and fundamental rights because i am convinced that in slovakia that would have really been support for the good' people.
finally we found a nation that is in shock traumatised and angry but also a nation that is resilient and our visit was a message to the people of slovakia.
we stand shoulder to shoulder with you as europeans to defend our shared values.
the services of the commission have fully taken on board the recommendations of parliament and we look forward to reviewing progress with you during our regular rendezvous where we have the opportunity to discuss the financial assistance strategies and their implementation.
the commission also fully concurs with the need to establish the decentralised management system as a step to promoting ownership and responsibility of candidate countries and potential candidates.
in two thousand and eight the commission launched the civil society facility as a tool for promoting civil society development and advancement of regional cooperation for which an indicative budget of eur one hundred and thirty million is earmarked for.
according to the principles of ipa environmental protection good governance civil society development gender equality and non discrimination are all cross cutting issues and are an integral part of project design.
civil society organisations are now more actively involved in the development and the initiation of projects.
guidance and assistance is being given to them in order for these countries to build the required public management structures and public financial control systems.
however in the face of the current financial crisis we will also need to strike an appropriate balance in the two thousand and nine and two thousand and ten programmes between continued support for political reforms and financial assistance to help the countries mitigate the consequences of the economic downturn. in this regard the report rightly identifies the challenges generated by the financial crisis and the need for an ec response. to that end the commission has put together an ipa crisis response package of about eur two hundred and fifty million
i can assure you however that the commission made all efforts to limit the delay of implementation on the ground and that preparation of management structures and detailed project design were pushed ahead all through.
two thousand and two who will give us a guarantee that we are not going to have the same debate in?
we are talking about the seventh extension of the special state aid regime.
two thousand and fourteen i know that votes took place in the different committees but i also know that there are many colleagues in the two big groups who feel deeply uncomfortable with the current position.
so they should vote in order to state their views.
i think they should realise that they have all the freedom in the world to vote according to their conscience because it is not actually the european parliament that decides.
we have requested a separate vote on amendments twenty five and twenty seven and we call on all colleagues in the two big groups to vote against those amendments and support the position of the commission to phase out the support by.
two thousand and eighteen because the reasons that were valid back in two thousand and two that are valid today will still be valid in.
we can give a very strong political signal in support of the commission and therefore i think this european parliament should act as a counterweight to the very strong political pressure from the member states on the commission and show that this parliament is looking to the future and not to the past.
that's not a scientific experiment it is a commercial fishing operation.
there are fears that the repeated electric shocks may cause long term damage to the sediments of the seabed and harm the nervous systems and backbones of fish.
for ten years this technique has been allowed to continue under the guise of a scientific trial with up to eighty boats operating in the north sea.
this is very different from the policies of iceland or new zealand or the falkland islands where skippers are incentivised to take ownership of quota and where effectively the system is privatised.
we can see which one has led to flourishing fish stocks and which one has led to a collapse. not for the first time we are labouring under the fallacy that the more we intervene the more good we do when in fact we have half a century of evidence to the contrary.
it is clearly a step too far in the industrialisation of the seas. it prioritises profits over conservation and as a conservative i will always err on the side of conservation.
we talk a lot about european values in this place.
to allow these barbaric practices to continue when we have it in our power to stop it are not the values i subscribe to.
mr president i voted against this proposal today because of the absolute incoherence of european union fishing policy which has done so much damage particularly to the united kingdom's fishing industry and communities but also to those of france and other countries all member states of the european union.
in particular what made me absolutely incensed was the fact that we voted on the electro pulse fishing technique.
it should have been regulated with additional regulations.
when a country that we are normally able to criticise so hugely china introduces a ban and the european union is not able to follow suit it does bring into question what does the european union mean by the term sustainability'.
it is very welcome but our government and i say this to my own government needs to make a clear commitment to fully fund and fully match that funding so that we have good agri environmental schemes for farmers we have good investment in on farm efficiencies and we fund rural development leader programmes thus making the most of the money that is available. it is a tall order but i think it has to be delivered on.
next we need a forensic look at the costs of producing food in the european union the costs of inputs.
the deal is done but we have yet to see what the member states will do with the deal because they looked for flexibility and they got it and farmers are now anxiously waiting to see the rules in each member state.
we are demanding more from them and there are more farmers so the very least we should do in this debate is acknowledge that the market must deliver more to producers in terms of returns.
we need a more understanding court of auditors and with respect to them they are a very cosseted section of society and they do not get their hands dirty.
we need to be careful in terms of the mental health issues for our farmers around the severity of cross compliance.
i do hope that parliament keeps a very watchful eye not just on delegated acts because that is key and we have heard the warnings here but also on implementation in member states and that when the review clause comes into effect we are prepared to change where necessary.
they differ hugely compared with new zealand where for example there is no support so let us look forensically at the bottom line for farmers.
we have secured a budget for rural development in my member state of eur three hundred and thirteen million per year.
when the eu inspector turns up on the farm at a moment's notice to have a look those sheep have to be gathered up and the inspector will have to get down on his knees and lift the tail of every single sheep which is a dirty and smelly job to assess the gender of that sheep.
we have also given flexibility as mrs mcguiness said to member states in the package to allow them to shape the cap to suit their own agricultural priorities; but as ever we are waiting for them to use that power to deliver and tell us how they will use that flexibility certainly in scotland.
the ability to transfer money from pillar one to pillar two and from pillar two back to pillar one undermines the very concept of fairness that lay at the heart of this reform and means that farmers in different countries can expect different levels of support.
so these were all steps in the right direction but there are two areas where i believe we have failed to reach a sensible outcome.
the good parts are the move away from pure income support in the direct payments package towards incentives for developing a more sustainable agriculture and paying for public goods.
finally i want to mention greening. member states are currently making costly administrative changes to accommodate greening proposals which i predict will have no beneficial impact on the environment at all.
in five years' time we will be hanging our heads in shame listening to demands from citizens for complete change.
many member states look west and see forty of the eu budget unfairly divided and unfairly distributed.
the sugar quota has been continued.
nothing has been agreed that will help farmers to farm more sustainably or to help to protect the environment.
on the issue of the capping of direct payments i believe our institutions have found a good compromise that is consistent with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
on the preparation of the delegated acts in this particular area may i say that the institution i represent is sympathetic to the many concerns expressed by many members of this chamber. the conclusion of our agreement on this reform marks a great achievement
it is the first to involve twenty eight member states each with their own farm structures and agronomic conditions and it is the first under the ordinary legislative procedure.
this is vital for a sustainable productive and competitive agriculture sector in the union.
the reforms safeguard the integrity of the internal market and recognise the need for a level playing field between our farmers and those outside the eu. however we are all too aware of the impact of excessive price volatility and the severe market imbalance on our farmers.
we have maintained a robust common eu framework which responds to farmers' needs. we all know how complex the discussions on the multiannual financial framework have been with the cost and benefit of the future cap coming under close scrutiny and rightly so.
we have the improved the union's capacity to act quickly and effectively in the event of future crises and have strengthened the position of farmers in the food supply chain.
these reforms will serve future generations.
a significant proportion of farm payments will depend on ecologically friendly farming.
may i also take this opportunity to thank the four preceding presidencies of the council for all their hard work in particular the irish presidency.
successive reforms have enabled it to evolve in response to changing circumstances.
the added value of each euro spent under the cap must fully contribute to the union's overall objectives.
two thousand and fourteen we very much look forward to a positive vote in plenary today. we are confident that you will endorse the work undertaken by the three institutions on this landmark reform with a first reading agreement today.
one of the most important achievements of this reform is the greening of farm payments.
it is an important moment. it is the outcome of a process in which both our institutions have played a full and important role.
i am also confident that with the financial resources we have agreed upon for the next period we can meet the objective of our reform and ensure that the cap will remain a strong policy.
we have moved towards a better and more equitable distribution of farm payments across and within the union.
our reform also better targets farm payments to those farmers and areas which are most in need of support.
on rural development we have reshaped our policy to increase effectiveness and to respond better to regional and local needs at the same time reducing the administrative burden both for farmers and national administrations.
we should be proud of the efforts we have made in particular to help our young farmers and to cut red tape for small farmers.
the cap for two thousand and twenty will again be able to address the challenges of the future helping both our farmers and our citizens across the union. this reform has been challenging.
however while the importance of the cap to the farming community goes without saying the cap is also important to europes food security.
this is an area where i do believe that this policy should have and could have gone much further in building a sustainable competitive and productive sector.
the principle of moving towards a land based payment risks money going to less productive areas and therefore risks the growth of the agri and agri food sector which is very important to the economy in my constituency.
the policy is also burdensome to our farmers and we need to see real clarity in the delegated and implementing acts in order to make a difference for our farmers.
with less money for rural development we need to ensure that this is directed towards agriculture and the environment.
finally the wider context to this debate is the role of the large supermarkets and the issue of a fair distribution of profit within the supply chain.
the eu's embrace of neo liberalism opens the door to trade agreements that force europe's farmers to face dangerous competition.
but this is not the reform it could have been and there are too many issues that have been parked.
there is a real risk that the common in the common agricultural policy will be less and less common depending upon the actions of the member states and local authorities.
also there are major question marks over the proportionality of penalties and the impact of delegated acts so this is very far from being over.
many of these issues will come back to haunt us because we have not been as brave as i feel we needed to be.
on balance i can accept the package but this is far from over.
as many involved in the process will know i find it very difficult to agree with much of the final text.
i can support the rural development and horizontal regulations for both will allow for more flexibility and common sense in the application of the common agricultural policy.
instead it focuses on greening proposals which will take the best land out of production.
thank you for the opportunity no it is not what you expect;
can you just confirm that what you have just said was as follows that you believe that president schulz the very important president of this european parliament does not believe in democracy and that you as a green mep really do believe that?
we said so then and have repeatedly said that bank stress tests must be credible robust and transparent.
so i suggest that we take a lesson from the us and the dodd frank act which requires disclosure with a two year time lag of the us fed's liquidity provision.
now these new stress tests are improved under the eba but there are still issues being avoided due to guarding and prevarication by member states.
so please can we have proper disclosed coordination of the response?
this simply does not stack up;
various assets got parked there under the heading of hold to maturity which would have been moved if they had not lost value.
some member states are being proactive in pushing banks to raise capital.
but a darker interpretation reflecting on some member states themselves will be cast by the fact that member states and in many cases the supervisors are the culprits were not bolder incoming clean. meanwhile actions are being provoked by the stress tests;
but there is no overall plan to address under capitalisation.
banks are seeking capital;
surely one thing we have learned in the crisis is that we are very interconnected. if banks do not trust one another and inter bank lending is frozen we have a big problem.
of course analysts in the market are well able to read across from stress tests and other information and make an estimate as to what is going on in the banking books.
but let us not dodge the elephant in the room this is not just about banks it is about sovereign debt and the stability of the euro inextricably linked and overwhelmingly important.
it is about time that the message sank in that feeble political will is not the answer to this crisis and makes solutions more expensive.
there really is no excuse not to stress test the banking book.
indeed we need a whole lot more banking transparency in general.
there are european names in the us disclosures and it would be an altogether healthy thing for eu central banks to follow suit with similar disclosure about support during two thousand and eight and two thousand and nine as an accompaniment to the new stress tests.
stress tests are meant to stress risks.
nineteen weeks later the irish banks collapsed and taxpayers across europe were forced into a bail out and just last week we learnt that eur twelve billion of the proposed portuguese bail out is for their banks.
refusing to test the sovereign debt held on the whole bank balance sheet will not restore confidence.
behind closed doors the argument has focused on the numerator.
what is the risk of the assets on the balance sheets and can you trust the risk weights applied to those assets?
the longer individual countries fight for their own opt outs the more everyone becomes aware that not all banks are equal and market concerns multiply. but we should also be concerned about the denominator.
if us banks have risk weights fifty higher than european counterparts are europe's banks being allowed to fundamentally misrepresent the risks on their balance sheets? the financial crisis should have taught us all to value transparency.
what type of capital do banks hold?
the european banking authority is of course caught between a rock and a hard place publicly admitting that the risk of a write down exists may perpetuate the risk of it occurring but denying that it exists at all would be downright irresponsible for a regulator. and then there are the trillion dollar questions.
this was europe's attempt to tell global markets to calm down dear. it failed.
to assuage market concerns they must stress the risks that the markets are concerned about and right now the markets are concerned about sovereign debt levels.
the sovereign debt crisis will not be solved until the bank crisis is solved and the bank crisis will not be solved until markets are confident in providing capital and liquidity to banks.
we have damaged confidence in the european union and in the eurozone.
as you know the irish banking sector has had its second round of stress tests and the new government has put in place a restructuring plan.
european union citizens are looking on in distress at what has happened in relation to banking.
the impact on the irish economy now is that good enterprises are starved of capital as banks struggle to meet the various requirements. this is an impossible scenario and i would ask the commissioner to address it.
given the potential for a deepening of the crisis this is unlikely to be the case.
the major financial institutions the major banks must be taken into democratic public ownership. the dictatorship of the financial markets must be ended and their massive resources should be used to benefit ordinary people through the granting of loans to small businesses affordable mortgages to help homebuyers and so on.