kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the commission has set itself on a course that will damage both sectors of the industry the promotion of degradable plastic will encourage third country cowboys into that industry undercutting the genuine manufacturers with a product which fails to degrade properly or worse still contains chemicals not allowed here.
what will seriously degrade of course is the british recycling industry.
this business is one of hundreds of similar firms across the eu which will not be able to guarantee the integrity of their product because of the near certainty of add mixture with degradable materials.
in a high proportion of cases they will be mixed up and disposed of together with conventional plastic bags and arrive at premises such as those of my constituent jessica baker whose firm chase plastics recycles plastics into products which must not degrade such as damp proof plastic membrane film used in the building of new houses.
the recycling industry actually purchases waste plastic thereby ensuring that there is a real incentive not to dump or fly tip this material.
madam president no matter how well intentioned the proposal to restrict the use of single use carrier bags may be there is a major unintended consequence that has been overlooked.
this makes it a very expensive candidate for the recycling industry when the capital costs of a washing plant of the significant quantities of water required and the disposal of the dirty water are all taken into account.
we should use that public support but not only use it;
i am a person who believes in targets so i think that targets normally work pretty well.
that is the first difficulty.
the second difficulty is basically connected to the fact that in quite a number of member states there are different kinds of approaches which deliver results which work!
of course the idea of the proposal was not to address the whole issue of all plastic and the problems which are connected with plastic;
secondly the proposal provides member states with a range of instruments including economic instruments such as charges national reduction targets and possible marketing restrictions provided that they are compatible with the european union treaty rules.
this would also be in line with the waste hierarchy principle and the prevention of waste in the first place.
the proposal contains two main elements.
however there are some amendments in the report that the commission regards as unnecessary in achieving the objectives of the proposal.
once discarded they can last for hundreds of years often as harmful microscopic particles that are damaging to the environment worldwide and especially the marine environment.
this is the clear lesson from member states such as ireland which have that shown simple measures can lead to big changes. the time has come for member states to take action across the european union building on the successful initiatives already in place and in response to broad public concern and support.
plastic carrier bags easily escape waste management streams and accumulate in our environment especially in the form of marine litter.
we use them for a few minutes but their legacy lasts for hundreds of years.
the idea of the reduction target might be appealing and indeed the commission looked into this possibility in quite some detail.
it is perfectly possible to reduce the consumption of these bags too while respecting food safety and hygiene requirements.
all lightweight bags contribute to littering and can end up in the marine environment.
the commission and parliament as i already mentioned share the same objective even though we may still need more discussion on the measures best suited to achieve that objective.
does anybody actually enjoy seeing the evidence of our collective addiction to plastic bags littering the countryside littering the cities choking our wildlife?
the point is how are we going to deal with it and how are we going to deal with it properly?
i would like to congratulate mr potonik on his proposal which i think sets out a very reasonable and very useful set of methods by which we can get to the point where we have significantly indeed almost completely eliminated our use of plastic bags.
but we have to be realistic about this.
people in this parliament seem to be very fond of compulsion the idea that we have to make people do things.
this report clearly gives the tools by which member states can do it and as has already been said many member states have already started along this road so there is no reason to believe that others are not going to follow if they are given the toolkit and the suggestions of how this should be done.
firstly i would like to say that i do not believe in mandatory targets.
the impact assessment does not support mandatory targets without reservation.
it quite clearly states that it is one of the things that can be done.
again it is one of the things which can be done but it is not the only thing and it is not something that member states should be compelled to do if they do not think it is the right way forward in their own countries. i also do not support the mandatory switch from plastic to biodegradable.
there is an adage that you catch more wasps with honey than you do with vinegar and i suggest they think about it.
it has a massive impact on children as well with last year more than one six hundred incidents of child abuse being disclosed by callers to the national domestic violence helpline in ireland.
with the closure of refuges and support services women will have nowhere to go.
one in five women in ireland will experience violence in their lives but it is not just women who suffer as a result of this.
mr president last friday was the international day for the elimination of violence against women and this week in ireland women's aid is running its sixteen days campaign which aims to raise awareness of the reality of domestic violence and to push for a positive change to increase women's safety.
i am heartened to see the commission is working with parliament and the council to combat gender based violence and support vulnerable groups but we must not let austerity undermine essential frontline services at home.
today the working class has begun to stand up and the potential power is very clear.
mr president david cameron described today's massive public sector strike as a damp squib.
they will not accept further attacks on wages further attacks on conditions and the further cutbacks in our public services that are driven by the government and the assembly. the outstanding socialist james connolly proclaimed the great only appear great because we are on our knees.
that means naming a date for further public sector strike action and striving to spread action to the private sector.
is it any wonder that this prime minister of a cabinet of millionaires that rules for the millionaires seeks to undermine this massive display of strength by working people two million people on strike across northern ireland scotland wales and england and a movement that demonstrates the power to defeat the government's austerity policies?
let us arise'.
this has to be the start of building a movement that can win.
the message from the strikers was very very clear.
yet across the eu drastic cuts in public services are adding to the numbers of unemployed taking money out of the economy and reducing essential services.
those countries that fall short far short of their target pledges should be strongly encouraged to rethink this disastrous policy.
when i barrack people i get threatened with fines.
this form of government is not working and yet what we heard today is that we are going to have a common defence policy and a common foreign policy.
you said how you felt things were going you pointed your way forwards.
you can smile mr schulz but you know nothing of financial markets or how these things work.
less than half of eu citizens think that being a member of the club is worth it.
one is now trapped inside an economic prison.
the lost business opportunities of a common commercial policy;
is it my old friend herman van rompuy?
well do not be too satisfied because the people have worked it out for themselves the real state of the union is that it is increasingly loathed and despised.
and yet some claim that this is because they want more europe! mr verhofstadt said that people want more common policies.
even more revealing is that in your own country of portugal over the last six months a further one in four people have lost total faith in eu institutions. that mr barroso is hardly an endorsement of success or belief and yet from most people today there seems to be such great self satisfaction.
whichever way you look at it the whole thing is a bit of a dog's dinner really. the eu has never had so much power and yet it has never been so unpopular.
they have recognised the inequality of the common agricultural policy;
you simply do not get it.
the other reason why these polls are where they are is that people do not respect you because you cheated to get the lisbon treaty through. we were told it would simplify everything that we would know where we stand.
well it is perfectly clear that this currency does not suit germany and it does not suit greece.
and of course now the big one the common currency this ill conceived political attempt to force people into a monetary union without ever asking any of them whether they wanted to be there.
you can pretend the crisis has gone away but it has not because the bond spreads are now eight on five and ten year bonds.
but never mind.
your speech emphasised the social market economy and social cohesion but your programme emphasises competition on the market and fiscal consolidation which precludes a social market agenda.
we are failing to learn the lessons of history.
indeed some argue that polls demonstrate support for more european economic governance.
it wants a better europe and a europe that adds value with a light touch.
the european union has been delegated by its member states with key functions that need to be achieved such as completing the internal market and furthering international free trade.
mr president as the president of the commission acknowledges belief that the eu is a good thing has fallen substantially and many people believe their member states have not benefited from membership. we should be worried but i fear that the commission is under pressure from those who believe that the solution to every crisis is more europe.
he spoke of increasing the proportion of people in employment whereas that proportion has fallen.
the only way in which we can compete with such countries is to drive down our wage rates to their levels.
just in case our employers and employees are not getting the message we are filling up our countries with third world workers who are turning large areas of our countries into parts of the third world with below minimum wage rates and unsatisfactory working conditions.
we are making workers in the commercial services sector redundant and outsourcing their jobs to the third world.
the individual nation states of europe and the european union on behalf of the continent as a whole are committing identity and economic suicide.
there is a crisis of confidence in democracy because the public believes that there has been a failure of elected representatives to regulate financial markets and all markets. i think we have to acknowledge our weakness in this respect. there is a belief that the european union can do better than individual member states and that is certainly a strong belief in the member state i represent ireland where we are in the depths of an economic and banking crisis
which requires deep analysis and scrutiny.
i welcome your comments on food security biodiversity and sustainable growth but be careful that doha and bilateral trade agreements do not destroy those noble objectives.
every single one of the policies fails and leads to a problem whether it is this or whether it is the euro and all the way through we see a fanatical political ambition to create a united states of europe regardless of the consequences.
at no time has any of this been endorsed by the voting public.
this deal means that we remain a nation of supplicants.
we've lost the freedom teasingly dangled before us through the two thousand and sixteen referendum results when a british establishment and political class were rudely reminded that the british people want to take back their sovereign control.
this was achieved thanks to the guidance of our lead negotiators and thanks to the unity within and between the eu institutions.
we will never allow eu citizens to fall victim to the same disgraceful hostileenvironment policies that saw members of the windrush generation wrongly deported.
we have also been responsible towards ourselves and our citizens not to endanger the european project and the integrity of our union.
we also welcome all the interpretative declarations adopted by the council and consider them legally binding including with regard to gibraltar.
we have been and we shall be always united. the eu has been responsible towards the uk by providing the basis to deliver an orderly withdrawal without any feelings of revenge or resentment.
we have always said and we repeat it now that if the uk changes its mind our arms are and will remain open.
it is a deal that protects citizens' rights safeguards the integrity of the single market and the customs union and crucially prevents a hard border on the island of ireland respecting the good friday agreement in all its parts.
there is no alternative deal to the one agreed on sunday.
we know that on citizens' rights which have been our priority from the start our work is far from being finished and we will remain vigilant with respect to the implementation of this part of the agreement.
but insofar as you want to leave the single market and no longer apply the principle of free movement of persons this is the only possible way to leave the european union in an orderly manner avoiding the severe disruption of a nodeal scenario. there is no other deal that could respect such limits without compromising or endangering our european project.
this is why we will continue to play a responsible and proactive role in safeguarding the integrity of the union and ensuring a positive future relationship with the united kingdom.
on the future relationship the uk has made its red lines clear throughout the process just as we have and we respect this.
in the negotiations we have shown a high degree of flexibility and we have stretched the deal as much as we could in order to take into account the position and the constraints of the united kingdom.
we have worked tirelessly for more than two years to protect those most affected by the decision and to alleviate its worst possible consequences.
the political declaration accompanying the withdrawal agreement establishes the framework and basis for an ambitious broad and deep partnership. this unprecedented partnership which should take the form of an association agreement shall fully respect the integrity of the single market and the autonomy of our legal order.
this sense of responsibility shall continue to guide us going forward. one thing must be clear though.
madam president. lot. of experts on domestic british policy these days. look brexit was always about much more than the economy. in a way because the european union strayed so far into many other areas into our national lives it is why the british people voted for brexit.
perhaps we should look at the impact of a bad deal or a sour relationship on the european union.
there's been astonishment in britain over the legalistic inflexibility that has been shown quite often. but we all know that the eu will bend or break any of its own rules when it suits it and instead of defending the long term interests of eu countries it seems to have chosen to pursue a narrow ideological course
you say you didn't want brexit but you did nothing to avoid it.
a bad deal for britain or no deal will have repercussions in many european countries as well as britain.
instead of listening to citizens your answer to everything is just more europe.
because of your insistence on a bizarre sequencing arrangement you've wasted two years when you could already have made progress on a free trade agreement.
this makes it all the more important to move quickly into negotiating our future relationship and reaching rapid but correct conclusions but we need some reassurance and flexibility indeed guarantees from the eu over concerns that have been expressed.
and by the way i think a lot of people have been very cross in britain about the discourteous way in which our prime minister seems often to have been treated.
all other issues would then have fallen into place it wasn't necessary to do it in the way you did.
it may appeal to the leaders of a couple of the larger countries in the european union.
we need an atmosphere of trust and goodwill from your side if we are to have that future positive stable relationship that is surely the least that all our citizens demand.
but of course the economic aspects are central.
much time seems to be spent here on predicting events in london and the consequences of brexit for britain.
defending a particular view of the eu project which is increasingly repudiated by citizens across europe;
they were increasingly unhappy with this tendency.
certainly the british government entered into negotiations in a spirit of goodwill aiming for a positive future partnership.
the pledge encourages projects and actions aimed at promoting peace in its most universal meaning based on the significance of each individual person.
it's inspired by the universal ideas of human dignity freedom equality and solidarity enshrined in the preamble of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union and confirmed by the lisbon treaty in.
twenty eight november was the seventh anniversary of the brussels declaration a pledge to peace signed here in this house in the european parliament under the patronage of gianni pittella then first vicepresident.
that has a consequence madam president. there will be three british voices in that debate each and every one of them from those who support brexit.
plus unlike today there will be quotas limiting the amount that we could sell into the eu and that's before we even start to think about renegotiating and starting the one hundred and twenty four new trade agreements currently handled through the eu with the rest of the world.
an end to zero tariffs a big change from today.
but what would that mean in practice for british businesses that export to europe?
wto rules are for the first time in my memory being talked about in everyday conversation in britain.
the political endorsement of the global compact in the intergovernmental conference in marrakech followed by the adoption of this document by the un general assembly will open the way for the implementation phase.
mr president honourable members high representative ladies and gentlemen thank you for this opportunity to discuss the issue again after the debate we had in strasbourg earlier this month.
the dialogues and the support we provide to our partners through a variety of instruments including through the eu trust fund for africa are testimony to our commitment to a policy that recognises the specific responsibilities needs and concerns of countries of origin transit and destination.
indeed since the adoption of the new york declaration for refugees and migrants in september two thousand and sixteen the eu has actively engaged in providing input at the various stages of preparation of the first draft of the global compact.
since the first draft of the global compact was put on the table member states engaged in intensive discussions on this document in the council both during the bulgarian and the austrian presidency.
they also actively engaged in the discussions in new york.
to conclude i would recall that cooperation with third countries and regions remains a crucial element of the eu's migration policy.
to just say go home and stay home' is no solution.
a common european response and global cooperation is the way forward to safe and legal migration because europe must work with third countries from prevention to combating trafficking and to implement return.
no state can deal with migration alone.
through complex share deals with no economic purpose other than to receive tax reimbursements from the state and no actual tax being paid european citizens have to put it bluntly been robbed.
thank you mr barnier and could i thank you on behalf of the parliament and president tajani for your work with parliament on this issue your transparency and above all else your patience.
the result of all this is the withdrawal agreement and i think the only and best agreement possible considering these three elements that i have just described.
moreover we are also committed and i want to tell you this today to ensuring that before we start the consent procedure in the european parliament we receive from our british counterparts the necessary guarantees that all these citizens' rights will be fully implemented.
the first are naturally the positions maybe i have to say the red lines of the uk government following the decision to end the membership of the european union.
but i have to tell you and i think it's important in these debates that also two other elements have been taken into account.
well it will be applicable once concluded in a provisional way after approval at the european level.
secondly it will be ratified in one round of ratification by the member states so as to avoid if i may say so the complexity of for example our relationship with switzerland which is based not on one association agreement but on a patchwork of agreements.
i think that it worked very well.
i believe that this framework withdrawal agreement and political declaration provides for the possibility to establish in the future a really close relationship between the european union and the united kingdom and the basis therefore as you have seen in the agreement in the political declaration is an association agreement
the first is to minimise the disruption for both sides in particular for the economy and to allow for an orderly withdrawal and allow for a timeframe between two and four years to conclude the negotiations on the future relationship.
in achieving this i would like to thank naturally and congratulate it's not the first time that i'm doing this michel barnier personally.
technically as you might know but maybe not after the conference in marrakech there will be a vote in the general assembly where member states of the un will take a vote but the commission will continue to work with the un system with the un agencies and with our partners globally to implement this agenda because we have seen that in the first couple of years of work that we have done along the lines that are reflected in the global compact these have started to bring results.
supporting a common system and a common approach to manage migration fight traffickers offer opportunities and also to tackle as some of you have said difficult issues like returns in an effective manner. it's a difficult process but it's a process that is now reflected in a compact that starting from a european approach has moved to a global level.
as i explained this is the result of a process that we europeans have initiated in the un framework asking for partnership and asking to have a political global framework for managing together on the basis of what we had already started to do with our african friends with our asian friends and with friends from latin america and everywhere.
it has to import its drinking water its food its electricity it is utterly reliant on things it brings in from elsewhere.
and britain outside the customs union as a wto member will have the opportunity to do something similar to return to what first raised us above the run of nations in the nineteenth century which is to remove barriers between businesses and their customers. that's all you need to do;
there was a unilateral removal of tariff and non tariff barriers that led to this extraordinary flowering of prosperity.
after the second world war its gdp was a third of that of the uk.