kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the future needs politicians brave enough to have their own opinions who can look a bit further ahead and who have a vision for a society with many more working mothers and many more caring fathers.
madam president i am afraid that there are many colleagues who were given the floor and they certainly came after me and my colleague here.
my government in the uk decided to opt in to the fund in april two thousand and twelve and i am pleased that it did so.
whilst there is a clear need for cooperation on these issues and certain minimum standards that must be respected member states have different labour market needs and different social policies.
the uk is very active in this area for example with resettlement and relocation programmes and we are therefore the single biggest beneficiary of the fund.
they should have some freedom to decide for example how many migrants from outside the eu they should accept and how many refugees they can resettle.
we believe that following negotiations with the council and the commission we have a reasonable proposal which provides flexibility and will help with the management of migration flows.
the money can be spent on a range of issues such as the integration of asylum seekers but also on combating illegal immigration.
we have worked hard to make sure that the various funds complement one another in order to simplify implementation and reduce administrative burdens.
different excuses different lies and asylum is just another one.
first their immigrant pawns were temporary guest workers;
this crime demands a new set of nuremberg trials and you people will be in the.
mrpresident when the godfather of the european union richard coudenhove kalergi published the plan for a united europe and the ethnocide of the peoples of europe the encouragement of mass non white immigration was central to the plot.
since then an unholy alliance of leftists capitalists and zionist supremacists has schemed to promote immigration and miscegenation with the deliberate aim of breeding us out of existence in our homelands. as indigenous resistance to this human genetic modification industry grows the criminal elite seeks new ways to camouflage their project.
but the real aim stays the same the biggest genocide in human history the final solution to the christian european problem.
then it was a multiracial experiment; then they were refugees and then the answer to a shrinking population.
how would you manage national asylum and immigration policies in an area of free movement across borders?
this language already shows how little importance the council gives to human rights.
we should not forget that human rights and development are at the core of foreign policy. home affairs money should not go against those aims.
we have to ensure that enough money goes to supporting refugees' rights and also ngos that support those refugees.
in the internal security fund we do not agree with the focus on surveillance and as the council calls it fighting illegal migration'.
we greens do not think that we should use the funds to finance dubious policies and activities in third countries.
by creating two big funds we might save some administrative costs but we should not let that lead to a blurring of the different priorities.
yes make it clear they cannot come here so they do not try to cross the sea and drown in huge numbers. the best way for them is to get the banks off the backs of their countries so that they can live in peace in their countries and we europeans can live in peace in ours.
do you really think that member states would be better facing the problems of integrating asylum seekers and migrants without eu assistance?
i think we can all be satisfied with the good result we have collectively achieved.
i strongly believe that these new financial instruments will allow us to focus more on achieving policy results and delivering added value at eu level.
moreover despite the financial crisis and the cuts imposed the overall resources for the home affairs funds have been increased and that reflects the growing importance of this field to the eu. the objective of simplification has been attained.
shared management will continue to be the main delivery mechanism in the field of migration and borders and it has also been introduced in the areas of internal security and police cooperation and crime prevention.
i am also happy that thanks to your support the partnership principle for national programmes has been strengthened.
the involvement of all relevant actors at national local and regional levels and the participation of international organisations will contribute to improving the quality and transparency of the planning process.
on the contrary we have tailor made national programmes designed for the specific needs and situations of member states and this approach will deliver greater benefits thanks to the stronger focus on results.
i called on them to finalise and submit their national programmes as soon as possible because if we do not have the programmes approved the money cannot flow.
my only question to him is this is he here to make any concrete suggestions or amendments to the legislation?
we need to have a responsible policy managing all the different steps in a migration policy including integration return and border management.
we have challenges when it comes to fighting crime terrorism and corruption.
we need to bridge the gap that we have had between internal and external policies because of course they are very much linked in all these areas.
of course every country has its specific needs and that is why we have engaged in these dialogues.
but we have been very clear from the commission side and we will throughout the process make sure that we promote european added value and responsible european priorities.
now of course we also need the political will.
thank you very much to all the rapporteurs the shadow rapporteurs and others who have been contributing to this and also thank you to the presidency.
should we really pay with our taxpayers' money for projects between the uk and norway while we know that many regions in europe need that money for their transition?
this list will lock us into fossil fuels for the next decades. it would be irresponsible to spend billions of taxpayers' money on these projects. second talking about the taxpayers' money the current pci list contains more than twenty uk projects of which six are not linked
first no environmental assessment has been undertaken.
we do not have a say on individual projects and i have many objections.
madam president first and foremost i must commend the fast and efficient work of the new commission and especially you commissioner vrhelyi.
if things go well this year we could have at least one candidate country that is ready for full accession by.
the new proposal can make the accession negotiations more political but also more efficient especially with the help of the thematic clusters which will definitely make the opening of chapters faster and if a cluster is closed by allowing access to certain eu funds there would be a tangible difference for the citizens and also for the companies in the region. i would also commend the flexibility of the system as it can be used for countries such as serbia which is already well advanced in the negotiations.
two thousand and twenty five looking at the first reactions in the western balkans and also in the member states there is a positive anticipatory attitude on both sides and i think that's a good sign.
the cluster mechanism could significantly speed up the process.
it was a direct response from the people to incredible unfairness in how the country is governed.
we have a homelessness crisis. we have a housing crisis.
we bailed out the banks.
so many people have been left behind by the so called economic recovery' and sadly the government have failed to deal with serious problems that were affecting the people.
what we really need is activity to promote the safe access of children to the internet. so that's why i think my colleagues will share the view that we need this kind of debate not only among us politicians.
if we vote for this it just means that we don't give a damn about the paris agreement and that the green deal is a load of nonsense.
the recent artelys report on gas supply security in the eu commissioned by the european climate foundation acknowledges the role of existing gas infrastructure in protecting the eu's energy security and the report says the new gas projects on the pci list are not necessary.
we should acknowledge as well that the pci process is legally unsafe and is leaving itself open for legal challenge in the member states due to the reckless behaviour of the directorgeneral for energy in compiling a list of projects without taking on board the climate impacts.
on wednesday we are voting on an objection to this list but we must not forget that if the fourth list is rejected we will fall back on the third.
it is much less ambitious in terms of climate change goals.
in low carbon technologies.
mr president commissioner i call for an urgent revision of the ten e guidelines a revision consistent with the energy and climate objectives in all the five dimensions of the energy union decarbonisation security of supply internal energy market energy efficiency more research leading to affordability and breakthroughs
the revision i'm asking for is also an opportunity to reassess some of the pcis.
the european commission has recently published the fourth list of projects of common interest. this list is based on the current guidelines not taking into account the new climate ambition.
the rules were created as a response to a deep economic and financial crisis and after ten years i think we can give a clear picture of how these rules
on the other side we have to relaunch our growth and nobody should ignore this.
i remember that in two thousand and eleven only three countries were respecting the rules on deficittogdp.
in some important european economies and uncertainty due to external factors trade relations that are not solved brexit which is an open debate and the consequences of the coronavirus.
but we know that in this average reduction we were not able to reduce high debt in several countries so the discussion is still open.
in conclusion i would particularly underline two key words.
it reduces ownership and confidence from member states and stakeholders towards our rules.
to promote simplification of these rules is also to promote their ownership.
so good results mixed results and shortcomings.
it is obviously too early to assess them but for sure they contribute to this uncertainty.
we have to find ways to facilitate investments especially those connected to the strategy of the green deal which president von der leyen rightly calls our new growth strategy.
in these uncertain times i think we need a framework capable of avoiding what economists call a low for long' situation a long situation of low growth low inflation low interest rate.
we were able to overcome the deep crisis and we had several years of stable growth in all member states.
our public investments are not yet at the level they were twenty years ago.
the picture for the next months and perhaps a few years is characterised by uncertainty uncertainty for internal reasons i think we all saw the bad results in the last quarter of last year
for this reason the debate we are opening is very important and we will define the scope and the conclusions of this debate during the next months in this process.
one is investments'.
have been functioning.
we have on the one side to preserve our stability and nobody should discuss this.
two thousand and thirty we're not going to do this by building terminals for importing fracked gas. we're not going to do this by increasing leaks of methane.
what's not to like?
so let's power up offshore wind invest in energy efficiency and retrofit every home in europe over the next thirty years.
lower fuel bills saving the planet it's a win win.
if projects of common interest don't protect our common home if they're not paris compatible then they must be scrapped.
commissioners back to the drawing board.
sadly too many people are being left behind and member states need the flexibility to take better care of those who most need our help and as my colleague said in ireland this weekend the neoliberal parties that were in government got a real good kicking because they didn't serve the interests of those who most need
people say that we need these strict rules in order to have financial security and stability.
we've got to have a better format. the truth be told too many citizens of europe are being left behind because of your strict rules.
we actually have to use every euro we have for the transition.
of course the situation is not black and white.
mr president commissioner i would be so happy if we would have time to wait until the new fifth list comes out and it's going to be all green and better but we should listen to the science.
so what should we do? yes i believe we should reject this list and it's up to your commission to immediately then come up with a new version of the fourth list a version that would be climate proof and green deal proof.
we all say that we listen to the science and not to the people on the street so let's listen to the science.
we don't have time to wait for the fifth list.
and i genuinely believe that the pcis are legally unsafe as there hasn't been an assessment of the climate impacts.
i agree with colleagues who said that this is one of the most serious decisions that this parliament has been faced with.
a waste of eur twenty nine billion that could be used elsewhere and scandalous projects like liquid natural gas importing fracked gas into ireland.
and can i ask what the common interests are on the list when they've been put together with so much pressure from the trump administration be it through tariffs on the auto industry or the military presence on polish soil?
as reflected in parliament's first reading position of seventeen april two thousand and nineteen on the proposal for a regulation on the connecting europe facility for the period two thousand and twenty one two thousand and twenty seven the colegislators provisionally agreed that the commission should evaluate the effectiveness and policy coherence of the tene regulation.
as regards the fourth pci list new gas infrastructure under the fourth pci list is designed to last at least forty to fifty years and in some cases even longer.
i'd also like to stress that the tene regulation was adopted before the adoption of the paris agreement.
the union needs an up to date highperformance energy infrastructure that is future proof cost efficient and can provide a security of energy supply including diversification of root sources and suppliers.
adequate infrastructure deployment and energy efficiency projects and policies should be used in a complementary way to help reach the union's objectives and targets.
madam president the european parliament has been calling in our green deal resolution not long ago actually this year for binding and enforceable sustainable development chapters.
this is the first free trade agreement that will come with the commission's mandate.
however unfortunately they're not being streamlined into the fta with vietnam because we have seen a lot of human rights violations also just recently with the crackdown of a peaceful protest in january and we've been asking for a firm and sanctionable commitment from the vietnamese government
also the commission which was just recently elected has been saying that the sustainable development goals are a key part of their agenda.
without functioning democracy without rule of law and even without good governance there is nothing to talk about it.
rule of law and media pluralism have been declining since serbia started negotiations in two thousand and fourteen yet we pretend as if nothing has happened and continue the negotiations and other chapters but without the fundamentals we cannot progress in other fields either. with a new approach we can move forward when we see progress. the more ambitious countries need to be included in as many eu policies as possible. with this we could gain back credibility and work on real changes in every citizen's life in the region.
two thousand and fifty however we should keep our promises.
the southeast of europe needs to become part of our green deal if we want to see europe climateneutral by.
nothing is worse than the disappointment which the council produced during the last summit in october.
but what can't be bent and what is not negotiable is the neoliberal ideology at the heart of the union this is sacrosanct.
i think a period of reflection may have been a little bit more worthy.
and i don't think that's for the benefit of people in albania or macedonia no more than i think that it is of the benefit to people in ireland. in actual fact it was the failure of these neoliberal policies that actually led to many of the people who voted for brexit.
madam president i think it is a little bit ironic that we're having this conversation just a week after losing a major member state.
it's the reason why so many people in ireland turned out this weekend to vote for left wing parties in an historic rejection of neoliberalism.
because let's face it while we know that rule of law and fundamental rights are in the accession criteria everybody knows that these rules are bent regularly by some countries depending on who you are.
it's an affront to them that the irish government would take legal action in order to say that we shouldn't collect eur thirteen billion in tax from apple monies that could be collected in order to invest in small and medium sized businesses.
i would like to echo the points made that one man's bureaucracy is another man's regulation and while we do not support bureaucracy in any way regulation and good standards are important in terms of employment in terms of environmental protection.
they employ more people they generally pay more taxes or certainly they do in ireland and the environment that they have to work in is incredibly hostile particularly when we compare it to the manner in which foreign direct investment and multinationals are treated and indeed the supports given to the agricultural sector.
i would like to put a very specific question to the commission how will the commission measure implementation costs of european union legislation ex ante and ex post so that the compliance costs for smes are reduced while at the same time safeguarding environmental labour and social standards?
i would like to stress three points here.
smes are really the backbone of our economy. they represent ninety nine of all businesses in the european union so their role is crucial when we speak about jobs and growth or innovations or competitiveness of europe. i'm very happy that the new commission has now many excellent goals to improve the position of smes in europe.
first of all better regulation which is the main topic of today's discussion.
eu regulation needs to better help our smes to scale up drive and expand.
we will have clearly the european green deal in mind when addressing the funding of projects from this list and other self regulation.
increased ambition and the commission shares your call.
we will be supporting investments that help to bring about more renewable energy solutions and new technological innovation.
two thousand and twenty because a modern secure and smart energy infrastructure will sustain this energy transition and help us roll out the large scale deployment of energy from renewable sources.
we can do this with the full understanding that different parts of the eu have different realities but at the same time also understanding that investments need to be made in cleaner sources and not locking countries' reliance on fossil fuels.
i understand that interconnection projects are necessary to ensure security of supply and solidarity among member states which until today are still disconnected;
it is for these reasons that the european commission needs to carry out all the sustainability assessments required to ensure that money is invested in projects that can really make the european union carbon neutral by.
things have changed drastically since the fourth projects of common interest list was drafted including in the formation of member states that makes the european union as a whole and this has to be taken into account something which is clearly lacking in the formulation of this list.
in our quest to move towards carbon neutrality by two thousand and fifty we need to make sure that we invest in the proper infrastructure today.
now going back to the three rd pci list is not what we need but money should be invested in projects that can really help us move forward in the right direction.
in the full list of energy projects that we are discussing there are still fossil fuel projects including oilsupply projects.
and to my colleagues who are saying well okay it's not ideal but let's do it for now are those the same colleagues who said a couple of months ago there's a climate emergency we need to act now'?
the new commission can do better now.
even you acknowledged in your speech already that everything will be better when we do the fifth list but for now we have to accept the fourth list.
i have to say when i read the green deal of the commission it reads very promisingly.
and then at the same time you are defending here the fourth list of these projects of common interests which are fossil subsidies.
and now we say oh let's just give more fossil subsidies to fossil fuel projects which will make us more dependent of a gas lock in and will not bring us to a climate neutral economy that is so desperately needed.
it's talking about bringing europe on a new path to a new economy and it's talking about a move away from harmful subsidies.
that's not how i expected a new commission with a new ambition.
can i just be very clear that you know what you are voting on this is the proposal from our id colleagues to change the agenda on tuesday and to have a commission statement on freedom of speech.
the id group has proposed an amendment for tuesday's agenda of which i have spoken. mr bellamy as i understood you want this to be included in an item that is already on the agenda.
if that is not the case we will move to changes to the agenda.
madam president there's been a lot of talk from the commission about reviewing the fiscal policies and the measures taken after the financial crash but for me there's precious little really in terms of the impact or the real effect on the citizens of europe and for me the report is really a bit of a whitewash of austerity.
i mean you're actually proud of the fact that you have reduced excessive deficits as you call it but no attention paid to the impact that that has had on citizens the debts of bankers foisted onto citizens.
could you not do it on social housing as well?
i am wondering do you think this criteria could be used to evaluate existing member states as well?
i know a lot of your colleagues in the commission are already working on this project maybe you could be helpful on that?
unfortunately ms judit varga the justice minister of hungary dedicated an entire opinion piece on euronews to claim that there are no such objective criteria to evaluate the rule of law but maybe if you have a talk with her maybe you could convince her otherwise.
i have two questions for you in your opinion what would happen if existing member states scored lower on the rule of law evaluation compared to candidate countries?
for our committee it is of utmost importance that in any future initiative on the matter we do guarantee not only the free movement of ai enabled goods and services but also the trust of the consumer in these new goods and services
because the applications are numerous and encompass virtually all sectors of the internal market.
consumers are being confronted on a daily basis with systems that use automated decision making such as virtual assistance and chatbots on websites and as is the case with all technological advancements this provides us with opportunities as well as challenges.