kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i think that for some it is a question of whether it matches with their own particular laws in particular where they are having to increase penalties but like you i find it amazing that member states have really not got their act together on this. this is absolutely a crucial thing about protection of young people and whatever the reasons we should be asking our colleagues in national parliaments to be raising the questions there as well about why this is not transposed.
we have done this before.
i did not say who has nuclear weapons or not;
yesterday the un security council adopted the toughest sanctions on north korea so far and eu foreign affairs ministers consider adopting additional restrictive measures.
high representative i call upon you to listen to the citizens.
what we have to recognise is that when you have a president with nuclear weapons who would rather let his people wither than commit to peace sanctions alone will not cut it.
we have proved under the vienna deal on iran's nuclear programme how our involvement and leadership can be crucial in turning around a situation of potentially devastating conflict and achieving peace and security for our citizens.
they do not want fury and fire like the world has never seen which was promised by the us president.
what i observed is that there was a broad consensus among the twenty eight foreign ministers and our high representative that we have to strengthen our diplomatic efforts to persuade pyongyang to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes in a complete verifiable and also irreversible manner.
might be a blueprint for a process in which the eu and some member states could play an active part.
it is a strong message that the international community is not willing to accept a nuclear armed north korea.
moreover it is also a direct and unacceptable violation of the country's international obligations.
we should therefore welcome that the united nations security council on monday unanimously adopted a us drafted resolution to impose new sanctions on the regime in pyongyang.
therefore i also welcome that chancellor angela merkel has stepped forward to suggest a european and especially german participation in any future negotiations with north korea.
in this respect i believe the european union could develop a more proactive policy undertaken hand in hand with our strategic partners south korea japan and the united states and as the high representative just pointed out of course the roles of russia and china are key. the two thousand and fifteen iran nuclear deal
as my country moves towards full independence from the european union we must ensure that we have a robust flexible and well funded defence capability that can fulfil our defence obligations whilst being in a good enough position to respond to the full spectrum of likely potential future threats.
at the same time it is necessary to have a firm and convincing stance by regional actors like china and russia which are aware of the consequences they would face in the event of nuclear escalation which obviously knows no borders.
i will focus on three elements which i believe are of even higher relevance than the sanctions themselves.
firstly the decision and unanimity reached in new york is even more important than the content of the decision.
it is in itself a win for diplomatic multilateral efforts and international unity in the face of the north korean threat.
secondly the latest efforts showed that the military option is not and should not be on the table and that there is international commitment to find a peaceful collective solution.
thirdly we are facing not a regional but a global threat an immediate threat not only for asia but also for europe and this is why i am happy that the eu and the high representative is fully engaged in this process.
as you know north korea will continue to export via front companies in china and malaysia so what can you do?
north korea is a client state so penalising china imposing sanctions and restricting access to western markets is really the key to the denuclearisation of north korea.
he wants to speak.
madam president let me just say that i am very pleased with the resolution by the security council.
it is a compromise admittedly but none of us would have liked the alternative and that is ratcheting up the warmongering from both sides.
i think we must grab the opportunity swiftly and offer a mediating role which the european union can so uniquely play.
we would be able to talk to all sides to deflate the tension pointing to our expertise as a valuable negotiator in the iran nuclear crisis.
so i appreciate the high representative taking up the issue.
mr president north korea is an island of its own making self isolated by internal atrocities and threats posed to the international community.
mr president caste discrimination is clearly unacceptable.
this report raises some very crucial issues but ultimately i am afraid that i cannot support some of the potentially disproportionate and heavy handed remedies that are suggested so i and my conservative colleagues abstained.
we must also not fail to recognise the great efforts that the indian government has made to tackle this problem where we can point to a whole host of positive discrimination policies that are in place to address the historical injustices of caste discrimination schemes which apply right up to the highest levels of government including a former president who was a dalit.
it is a serious human rights violation and it is for this very reason that this parliament has been calling for action to address caste based discrimination ever since.
mr president there is a fundamental problem for the two common law countries in the eu when they integrate with the rest. it is nobody's fault nobody has set out to conspire to make this the case it is simply that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the judicial model that pertains across most of the european union the
roman law or bonapartist model where a law is written down from first principles and then applied to specific cases and the rather anomalous almost miraculous emergence of a system where it was never written down in abstract terms but the law grew like a coral case by case coming across new circumstances with each new judgment.
quite understandably the european union favours the prevalent model that pertains across most of its member states when it is drawing up its own corpus of jurisdiction.
it is simply that this leaves us in the awkward position of always being the ones who have to change more than the other member states and that fundamentally is why we are always the odd ones out.
but in this resolution the european parliament has not observed any balance at all. it has come blundering through motivated not by a proportionate reaction to an identified problem but by a starting proposition that the united states is in the wrong.
i think members have been watching that episode of too often the one about the illegal transportation in greenland and they now imagine themselves being the good guy standing up for freedom against the wicked cia.
these are difficult complicated questions but it is not the cia who are our enemies.
it is possible to have decent protection for civil freedoms for privacy and at the same time to be allies of the democratic and free world in the defence of a way of life that is worth preserving.
actually caste discrimination is a problem that is being eroded with every passing year by economic development and by the spread of education and capitalism.
i think it was thomas babington macaulay when he was briefly an indian administrator who said that railways were the greatest destroyer of caste.
that process of destruction has accelerated since indian independence because india being a common law based democracy elevates the individual over the state.
this is something that did not need lecturing from outside.
we might be better advised to look at what happens when economic growth goes into reverse.
it is not a problem the indians are having but it is a problem we are about to have.
what was once an eccentric position of opposing it has now become uniform among all the mainstream parties.
we of course wish our friends and neighbours who are in the system every success with it.
i cannot help noticing a structural problem which is what we might call the tragedy of the commons.
when you remove internal border checks you disincentivise countries in certain geographical locations from properly policing the system.
if somebody arrives in greece and you can see that he has travel documents that his final destination is somewhere else you have less incentive properly to police the border than you would have done if you still had a system of national control.
to strengthen cooperation among member states and the european agency for external border control will increase our capability to save lives combat cross border crime and prevent irregular migration.
what is important now to make it work?
more member states have to take more responsibility in funding and supporting frontex and in setting up the surveillance contact points as soon as possible.
it is not about closing our borders.
we do not want fortress europe'.
mr president when the prm treaty was extended from the seven member states to the rest of the eu there were some concerns expressed at the time.
first of all it was seen as a sleight of hand by the previous labour government which had not stood up for the uk concerns over this particularly since we seemed to have the largest fingerprint driver licence and dna databases in europe and we were going to start sharing that information with the other member states and with law enforcement agencies in countries where we were not sure that they had the ability or the capacity to reciprocate when we wished.
the reason we are discussing this or have discussed it this week is because some of those concerns have come true.
therefore i welcome any attempt to try and improve the efficiency of that cooperation between member states.
for this reason i and members of my group supported the measures here because it is all about cooperation it is all about sharing data firstly to protect our own borders but secondly to make sure we avoid a repeat of the tragedies that we have seen when people try to get in illegally or with smuggling.
let us make sure that we continue to use this model of cooperation.
at the same time let us make sure that we do not impinge on the civil liberties of citizens within the eu but also citizens from non eu countries coming into the eu.
it is micromanagement and excessive regulation of this kind that has led to europe as a whole depleting its batteries.
we have run out of actual capital and human capital and enterprise.
but as my colleague from london charles tannock has said it is important that we take account of deeply entrenched cultural issues and we make sure that we tread very carefully as we tackle some of these issues. the indian government has done much to tackle this area and i think it would be a mistake to include a caste based discrimination clause in any trade agreements.
let us trade sign agreements and slowly encourage the removal of caste discrimination.
i am glad to acknowledge some improving tone but significant changes in texts is what counts.
we must streamline procedures so that rapid country blind approaches are taken not those hamstrung by too much council or nationally tilted decision making.
that is why i have problems with the content as well as the form of the intergovernmental agreement.
the country blind approach must apply also to the use of funds.
there are two possible responses to that create a fund that right from the start helps to break those links fostering collective financial stability and growth or put controls and compartments on the fund that unpicks those benefits.
the latter council approach puts brakes on achieving a better monetary union.
it is the opposite of haste so why do it in haste?
if need be the work can be left unfinished to be picked up by the next parliament.
before the crisis shareholders and investors benefited from the profits made by banks but when disaster struck taxpayers were left to cover the losses.
we have already changed that with new rules across the single market which are being mirrored across the globe so investors take the first losses and depositors are protected. this parliament has made some helpful changes to this legal text to make sure that its rules mirror those across the single market
but this piece of legislation is primarily for those in the euro area.
as an economist i understand why monetary union needs a closer fiscal union and a banking union.
if those within the euro area want to pool their sovereignty then that is their choice but it is also a huge change and it is no wonder the negotiations are difficult.
there are large amounts of money at stake and my group has empathy with national governments which want a say.
my group also has many members from nine different countries which are not currently in the euro area some of which will never join the euro area and the rules for the euro cannot be cut and pasted to those outside.
those inside should not expect others to pick up their bill and parliament's text does not address this issue. when banks fail we know decisions need to be taken quickly and too many cooks spoil the broth.
i understand why colleagues from other groups want fewer decision makers at the table and they do not want all the cards held just in the hands of a few large countries.
but every bank is different circumstances are never predictable and so experts also warn us against the tick the box approach.
we must have some flexibility and not be too prescriptive.
however we are really debating this today because some meps are fighting not about the big picture but about the legal instrument.
if there is legal uncertainty at the time of crisis our economies will pay.
absolutely i agree with you.
there is a lot at stake because europe urgently needs a banking union to have a safe and stable financial system.
this is crucial to speed up economic recovery throughout europe.
with the current slow pace of negotiations we might not get it right before the european elections.
but what started as a constitutional concern over a specific issue has now resulted in a complete overhaul of the governance of the resolution mechanism.
the system is overly complex it leaves crucial decisions up to the member states and makes resolutions dependent on national resources.
this will not work when a bank needs to be resolved over the weekend. therefore substantial changes are needed because this could seriously undermine effective application of the resolution tools.
we want to ensure that bail in will be applied to make sure that shareholders and investors pay. but it should be equally applied to failing banks irrespective of the member states in which they operate.
this could even reinforce the damaging link between member states and banks instead of breaking this.
because communities in resource rich countries have over decades seen billions of their wealth generated from oil gas minerals or logging robbed and squandered by corrupt governments.
only tough transparency rules and reporting will allow communities to follow the link between individual payments and projects.
this creates a link between a project a mine or an oilfield and the payment.
the new law will be a major new weapon in the fight against corruption ensuring that citizens of resource rich countries can hold their governments to account for the exploitation of natural resources.
on the same day the nigerian government paid the exact same amount of money to malibu oil and gas owned by convicted money launderer and former oil minister dan etete who had given himself the oil block in the first place.
the european parliament's team therefore rejected the council's initial weak uk government rio tinto inspired proposal.
we rejected the council's demand that there should be exemptions from reporting rules in those countries which make it a criminal offence to disclose payments to their governments a demand which would have rendered the entire legislation meaningless and ineffective as corrupt countries would have used new secrecy rules to prevent disclosure. so the new rules will enable us to give a practical example to deal with the kind of corruption we saw in may two thousand and twelve involving shell and eni in nigeria.
so companies now will have to report payments at country level and project level.
in may two thousand and twelve documents came to light detailing how nigerian subsidiaries of shell and eni agreed to pay over one billion dollars to the nigerian government to acquire an oil block.
shell and eni deny paying any money to malibu oil and gas and maintain that they only had dealings with the nigerian government.
citizens can use this data to identify payments follow the passage into government and challenge their governments as to where the money went and what it was used for. this is a wake up call for legislators and businesses. this vote is history in the making.
that we require companies to publish the payments they make to governments for each lease or licence that they obtain to access resources.
all levels of government are defined within the rules so payments to federal national regional or local governments will have to be reported.
they have an abundance of resources but that does not lead to wealth and prosperity.
in two thousand and eight alone african oil gas and mineral exports were worth nine times the value of international aid eur two hundred and sixty billion versus eur thirty three billion.
therefore we insisted on some very tough rules. why?
the european parliament has always stressed the need for country by country reporting for the extractive industries.
it matters to people in africa.
if you know just how much income your government has received then you can question where it has been spent.
mr president as we have just heard oil gas and mineral exports from africa are worth nearly usd four hundred billion a year nine times as much as the continent receives in development aid yet extreme poverty remains endemic. the transparency and accounting legislation is a historic step forward because for the first time international companies in the extractive and logging industries will have to publish what they pay to government authorities
public information means public empowerment.
but this legislation is just a first step.
mr president as a member of the committee on development i would like to start by congratulating my colleague arlene mccarthy for the brilliant work that she has done on ensuring that there is more transparency in the activities of eu extractive and logging companies in developing countries. why? because corruption is the single most important reason why the poorest people in the world cannot be lifted out of their poverty.
corruption and impunity and at all levels.
this also addresses the issues within the eu because this legislation is a start.
it will force eu companies who extract in developing countries to disclose the payments they make to governments for such access. i have witnessed myself the disastrous consequences of resource curse in countries such as botswana and angola resulting in bad governance and inequality.
i have been advocating for years for worldwide action on this issue together with ngos such as global witness and others. i congratulate arlene on this excellent work which has placed the issue at the top of the political agenda.
one of the things that we tried to do in the ecr was to highlight the role that accounting standards play in the whole debate to make sure that there is more transparency when it comes to accounting standards and to highlight some of the concerns around ifrs accounting standards.
do not make it even more expensive.
love has a very high price in norway.
do not even think of buying flowers for your girlfriend if she is norwegian.
' but when it comes to the topic liberalisation of trade' there is no reason for congratulations.
i have to say to my fellow norwegians that if you respect your commitments and decrease import duties i can promise you that the world will not go under. the sun will still rise in the morning. the lakes will be fresh and clean era fjorder underbara and you will still be able to eat your brunost since we have do not have any intention of buying it whatever the price might be.
i am referring to the unjustified and gradual appropriation of fish resources in the area of spitsbergen and the preferential treatment of norway which does not respect the provisions of international agreements. this leads european fishermen into bankruptcy as well as allowing norway to disrespect and disregard the european union as a partner.
but this is not the only issue that sheds a bad light on relations between the european union and norway.
it is unfinished business.
this is genuinely creating a lot of jobs in rural areas that would not otherwise be there and also contributing a lot to the economic surpluses of many of our member states.
we continue to make representations on your behalf and others in relation to reversing this decision as well.
a recent fifty six page report by nei til eu has found that the cost to norway of this agreement has risen tenfold since.
this is significant because this report talks about the entry fee that norway must pay for such access. clegg blair mandelson and other europhiles tell us that the single market is so important that any price is worth paying to get into it. so what happens in norway? they have been the lucky recipients of twelve zero directives and regulations.
i see i am not the only person engaged in substitution as my old friend the agriculture commissioner is here substituting for another commissioner so i am setting a trend.
some of these are exceeding the authority of the original agreement.
in the uk the remain camp are obsessed with access to the single market.
the financial mechanisms have played an important role in reducing social and economic disparities in the european economic area since the entry into force of the eea agreement in.
iceland liechtenstein and norway are part of our european continent and we share the same space but also the same principled interest to make growth in europe more inclusive and sustainable.
the outcome of these negotiations and the provisional applications of these agreements were commended by all member states notably in the december two thousand and sixteen council conclusions on the extended single market.
so i want to thank you members for raising the issue of the increase of norwegian duties on agricultural products and for the very keen interest which this house has shown in it as evidenced by the resolution that has been adopted.
their aim is to renew existing preferential trade access to eu markets for their fish and fishery products.
we have a responsibility to work together with our neighbours strengthening a spirit of european solidarity and cooperation beyond the borders of our union.
in order to reflect your concerns i want to assure you and reassure you that the commission and the eeas have done all they can to address the situation following the changes in norwegian duties on certain cheeses on lamb and beef products from one january.
both eea partners have made conditional their contribution of funds to the last three eea financial mechanisms upon obtaining temporary fish trade concessions.
the successful outcome of these negotiations would not have been possible without the tireless political support and interest by the members of this house. you have regularly used the joint eea norway and iceland parliamentary committees to call for an immediate and successful conclusion of these negotiations.
these concessions were in place in the period two thousand and nine two thousand and fourteen and have now been renewed with a modest improvement in trade access. furthermore norway has agreed to continue allowing for free transit of fish and fishery products landed in norway from vessels flying the flag of a member state of the european union.