kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
please would you give a clue about that integrated approach?
thank you on behalf of the alde group.
madam president as you can see my colleagues are jealous of our relationship which is why they have acted as our chaperones here this afternoon.
the car industry cannot cope with the regulations that we have enforced.
we all know that the car industry is having some serious financial problems.
the amendment calls for the phasing out of export subsidies without delay.
the amendment also states that eu export subsidies represent a serious obstacle for acp producers in the agricultural livestock and dairy sector. we all know that this is a vast overstatement of the case. in fact if we were to phase out all kinds of export subsidies without delay we would decimate our own dairy industry and food security in this sector and i seriously question if that is what parliament really wants to do.
the industry is a model i believe of the way a sector can transform itself as i saw for myself on my recent visit to jaguar land rover in castle bromwich where i was really impressed by the forward thinking of trade unions and their partnership with management to ensure continued research and development into green vehicles.
madam president it will come as no surprise to you that i supported the report on the future of the car industry an industry that is sometimes maligned by some but for me a crucial sector of manufacturing in regions like mine the west midlands.
i have also been urging the commission to approve the uk government's support for the car industry and i welcome that this has happened.
our approach to industry during this economic downturn must be holistic.
firstly because of its imprudent and reckless demands for even more funds for wasteful eu expenditure which for the united kingdom of course means demands for an even higher annual net contribution driving us into further deficit.
the second reason i voted against this report is the presumption it makes on the implementation of the lisbon treaty with no regard to that treaty's failure to meet the ratification test set for it.
in particular i want to mention the quite disgraceful actions of president sarkozy in france in giving state aid to his own manufacturers on the explicit assurance that they should withdraw production from other member states.
madam president defined external frontiers are the essential attribute of nationhood.
all sorts of other functions can be devolved to local government or indeed delegated to international associations but a state that no longer determines who can cross its borders and settle on its territory is no state at all.
euro federalists including the author of this report the good baroness ludford well understand this point which is why for the past five years their chief endeavour has to been harmonise justice and home affairs.
under the splendidly orwellian ministry of truth style title the area of freedom security and justice' they have harmonised immigration and asylum they have created a european public prosecutor a pan european magistracy a single system of criminal justice and even in europol a common police force.
really it just comes down to the accessibility of credit rather than any serious problems with their business models.
on the other hand there are plenty of companies that have for many years been very close to failing propped up by state aid or making losses. looking at the example of america where they have given aid to some of the most inefficient producers producers who have not taken account of the times let us make sure that we do not repeat those mistakes and give state aid or any aid to companies that have no long term viable future.
madam president it is always a pleasure to be present with you in explanations of votes. people will start to talk soon.
the current financial crisis has highlighted the problems of having such a long period for a financial framework.
who a couple of years ago would have foreseen the extent of the damage caused by the credit crunch and its consequences?
the problem exposed is one that actually we have created. there is now a new industry that has been built in brussels.
it is not a manufacturing industry although it does create some jobs.
it is quite a sinister trade.
the commission consults ngos on a subject the ngos call for action they lobby meps to give political support for this call the commission eventually runs a programme in the subject area and yes you've guessed it!
the ngos who told the commission this programme was needed bid to run the programme itself.
this was an opportunity wasted because we could have said that we are not going to do this in the future.
on the vote in hand and the eu califorum deal i think we should recognise that even though there were many concerns over the deal in terms of the eu being aggressive in trying to open up its markets at the same time it does set a deadline for liberalisation and it makes many of the caribbean countries recognise that they have to seek to diversify.
this also needs to be clarified.
we have to expect more mobility not least because we want to boost student mobility mobility of learning in the european union and that will in time lead to more professional mobility as well.
romania should not only fight for others to respect free movement but also do better with the absorption of eu funds which are supposed to promote economic and social development.
we have to expect and anticipate more mobility hopefully more balanced mobility but we have too much poverty.
because countries did not open up simultaneously and then accession brought new opportunities.
in the eu are not obliged to grant social assistance to non economically active eu citizens during the first three months of residence.
for example the integration of the roma should also be supported in romania and other countries by using the european social fund and other financial instruments for better education and employment opportunities and other purposes.
the situation of third country nationals is also different but sometimes the public discourse does not differentiate between them.
the commission did what the commission is supposed to do in such situations.
on the contrary a recent study commissioned by the european commission confirms once again that the main motivation by far for eu citizens to move is to work and that they are generally more likely to be employed.
this is why last april the european commission presented a proposal for a directive with measures facilitating the exercise of the right of free movement of workers. these measures include for instance the provision by member states of information assistance and advice to eu migrant workers and employers as well as of appropriate means of redress at national level.
mobile workers from these two member states will fill job vacancies in the receiving countries. it is also likely that a significant proportion of existing undeclared work will simply be recognised.
the commission stands ready to help municipal authorities and others to use the european social fund to its full extent to address those issues.
regarding expectations we should understand that the biggest wave of eu citizens from bulgaria and romania moving to other countries has already taken place.
the commission also stands by the national authorities when they fight abuse and fraud free movement entails rights and obligations.
the commission is discussing concrete actions with the member states including the development of guidance on eu rules for example;
these declarations are often coupled with the allegation that these eu citizens move to another member state with the sole or main objective of gaining access to higher welfare benefits rather than to find work all this leading to the final allegation that they represent a substantial financial burden for host member states.
eu rules on the coordination of the social security systems of member states ensure that citizens moving to another country are covered by one and only one social security system and receive the same treatment as the nationals of the country providing the benefits.
as you know at the end of this year the transitional measures relating to freedom of movement for romanian and bulgarian workers will come to an end and they will be able to fully enjoy the same rights as other eu citizens.
there have been declarations by some politicians and the media about alleged exploitation of member states' social security systems by newly arrived eu citizens.
however previous experience with the two thousand and four enlargement has shown that people migrate mainly to take jobs and not benefits.
in this respect the social assistance that is provided normally depends on more or less generous national or local systems.
future flows are likely to be smaller and to continue to be driven mainly by employment opportunities.
it can contribute to fighting unemployment and it ultimately benefits the citizens of all member states.
i am angry at all the european politicians and parties and governments which abusing the natural fears of their citizens due to the financial crisis have talked about romanians and bulgarian preparing to come in huge numbers in two thousand and fourteen to steal jobs and abuse the welfare systems of the host countries.
as for my disappointment that is for the commission which should have done more to lay to rest the nationalistic angle that now makes life difficult for many romanians and bulgarians living in other eu member states.
it has been stoked up especially by anti eu parties trying to work on people's fears and pretending that closed borders in a globalised world will deliver greater benefits when in fact we know that that is not true.
the figures he quoted today should be in the public domain. i believe it is the responsibility of parliament's and the commission's offices to ensure that accurate statistics are in the public domain and to keep hammering them home.
i agree with commissioner andor that mobility of eu workers is of benefit to member states but we need to be able to quantify this.
we must not lose the argument because we do not have the facts at our fingertips.
this will be an important issue in the next european elections.
i come from a country which is well acquainted with emigration yet i sometimes hear stories about people coming from other eu states who gain immediate access to all benefits and try to abuse the system.
in my opinion that question needs to be answered specifically and not just in general.
there is hysteria about benefit tourism.
but of course this whole issue is going to get bigger because we appear to have learnt nothing from. two thousand and four if you allow the unrestricted free flow of people between poor and rich countries do not be surprised when you get a big result.
but i have to thank him for his study because he is the one who has told us that there are six hundred zero economically inactive eastern europeans in britain something our own government was not able to tell us.
this issue will be the central issue of the european elections next year. it will be the central issue of whether britain remains a member of the european union.
it means more oversupply in the unskilled labour market a greater burden on the national health service and our schools and yes sadly it is going to mean more crime too.
i wanted to say a couple of words about coordination of social security given that i worked on that for ten years in this parliament.
so do not assume that a higher salary automatically means that people get a better quality of life if they choose to move.
it has been the practice for years possibly the sixth piece of legislation ever put in place by the european union and the current rules were passed by unanimity in council.
it is not just about salaries when they take that into account it is also the cost of living.
also free movement is one of the most popular rights of the european union which may explain why certain people are so busy attacking it at the moment.
this is a debate and a matter of great interest to our constituents so can i respectfully submit to the chair that the blue card be permitted even if people are on the speakers list?
as an openly gay person i think it is the right of everyone to love who they want to love and to live the life they wish to live whoever that may be with.
this is about fundamental human rights.
everyone knows that i am a believer in the member state but as ms in 't veld said this is beyond the member state.
what i try to do is to bring the governments to understand this.
we will try to have this applied everywhere in the same way as it is written down and here you find me on your side.
we should not allow a mythology to be developed saying that actually it is possible to discriminate.
sometimes governments are more cautious than their populations and this has been said from personal experience in this chamber.
i do not know about a change of mentality in the different member states. i can just tell you about the experience which i have as a politician over so many decades.
if you live in a legally recognised same sex partnership or marriage in country a you have the right and this is a fundamental right to take this status and that of your partner
the reality sur le terrain in real terms might be different and we have to change this reality.
this is absolutely clear and we do not have to hesitate on this.
this is the reason why i have said that we have these bilateral meetings at technical level with member states in order to see how we can change their way of applying something which is very clear in legal terms.
sometimes the population react in a very natural relaxed way and the government thinks that there is a very big problem.
there was a question when is this going to happen?
we have to be very firm on the principles.
if there is no understanding then more harsh measures have to be applied.
in the member states.
we have to advance step by step.
for the commission it is very clear that the directive must be applied with full respect for the principle of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
you can count on my determination to act within the framework of the powers that the treaty has entrusted to the commission.
the guidelines are from july two thousand and nine so we are now looking at the way member states are applying those guidelines in practical terms.
the ban on discrimination including discrimination at the level of sexual orientation is a cornerstone of the eu and is also recognised in another article twenty one but this time of the charter of fundamental rights.
this means the commission has to monitor whether in applying the directive member states respect fundamental rights including the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation the well known article twenty one of the charter. the commission attaches great importance to eliminating any obstacle restricting the right of free movement and residence
you will know that the commission has adopted guidelines on better transposition of the directive.
the directive has brought a very significant improvement for same sex couples.
and will continue to work with member states to make sure that the directive is applied correctly.
the directive is very modern in that respect because it does not distinguish between same sex couples and couples of the opposite sex.
the directive in itself is not the problem but rather the interpretation of the directive.
the commission welcomes the report on homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation issued by the fundamental rights agency.
so please push.
if this house does the right thing and you commissioner do the right thing then we really can change the union and change people's lives for the better not only for ourselves but for generations to come.
i have the quote here but i know i do not need to remind you of it because you are a woman of principle who will stand up against persecution and discrimination.
in politics it is so easy to follow public opinion.
i am afraid it is an argument proposed by those who wish to have any excuse not to achieve equality.
commissioner it is your role and i know it is a role you will take up to push them into that ring of tolerance and understanding.
there are twelve that recognise civil partnerships.
like mr de jong i am a gay man in a civil partnership in a relationship of twenty seven years that has only been recognised by the state for five years.
there are five member states that recognise same sex marriage.
ten of the twenty seven remain outside that brilliant ring of tolerance equality and understanding.
as was said earlier if i were to have an accident whilst on holiday in italy my partner would not even be given the basic right to decide whether in such a case i should be on a life support machine or not.
then we really will have an area of freedom security and justice not just for some but for all regardless of one's sexual orientation gender or gender identity.
the hardest and most difficult thing to do is to lead it and to face down prejudice.
this debate is not about accepting the sensitivities of other countries;
this is about implementing the principle of mutual recognition. i would ask other speakers who have expressed somewhat similar sentiments to accept that we do now have a well developed mutual recognition principle in many areas of eu life and competence.
of course the families of the girls vigorously protest against this because they feel it is not up to the men to decide to take the girl it is up to her father to decide to give her away.
because we feel that the choice of a partner the choice of a husband or a wife is the most personal and intimate choice you can make in life.
it is not for the man not for your father not for your brother and certainly not for the state to determine who will or will not be your partner. we have seen in history and we still see today countries where the state bans marriage between black and white people.
in my country not very long ago this was something my grandparents were confronted with catholics were not allowed to marry protestants even if they loved each other.
there are still conservative muslims who feel their daughters should not marry non muslims.
there are many examples like that and we feel that is very shocking.
but we still have countries in the european union that ban marriage between consenting adults of the same sex.
i know that for some people it is very shocking that people of the same sex can love each other but that is not really relevant. what is relevant here is that every single eu citizen should have the same rights.
it is not for the european union or for the member state governments to judge a personal relationship.
the european union has no competence in family law but as michael cashman has just pointed out there are five countries already which have opened their marriage laws to same sex couples.
there are a number of other countries which have some form of recognised partnership.
the very least we should be doing in the european union is apply the principle of mutual recognition.
we do it for jam and wine and beer why do we not do it for marriage and for relationships?
i would like to ask the commission to take the initiative for mutual recognition between those member states which already have marriage or some form of registered partnership and give us a roadmap on how we will get to a situation where those relationships will be recognised everywhere.
we have splendid principles in the treaties and legal instruments of the eu non discrimination equality rights of minorities human dignity the right to family life and the right of free movement but their implementation in the member states leaves much to be desired and falls short of these values and commitments. the problem is that the commission which is the watchdog and guardian of the treaties all too often hesitates to pursue member states for even quite serious and very serious breaches.
i am privileged to represent london and therefore i would say one of the most progressive regions in europe when it comes to gay rights.
i am not claiming that my city or even my country is free of homophobic prejudice or discrimination we do not yet have gay marriage but we have made a lot of progress.
but when my constituents with civil partnerships travel or move abroad within the eu they lose their rights and legal status as others have mentioned inheritance tax social benefits even the right to be treated as a partner are lost.
but the whole programme in an area that i work in a lot which is european criminal justice is rooted in the principle of cross border mutual recognition recognising and implementing legal decisions made in other eu member states.
so why not legal decisions on partnership or marriage which is even more precise than the area of jam and widgets that my friend sophie was talking about? i therefore do not agree with vice president reding with respect that the free movement directive does not need amending.
it does need amending to remove the semi discretion that member states have to discriminate against couples where they are same sex partners or spouses moving from another member state.
we have got to a sort of critical mass even if one accepts this argument that you have to wait for social change.
we have a critical mass of member states which legally recognise same sex couples.
it is time to introduce uniform treatment of those same sex partners moving to another european country.
in fact a recent interesting judgment of the european court of human rights suggested it might not be too long before that court the court of the council of europe insists that marriage be open to same sex couples.
it would be richly ironic if the eu had failed to act and we found ourselves upstaged by the council of europe when we claim to be the gold standard in our own self definition compared to the council of europe.
the best estimate in lost catch alone is at least gbp.
mr president i have recently been trying to establish the cost of the common fisheries policy to the british economy.
the solution for britain is of course to leave the european union regain control of our territorial waters and restore sanity to a revitalised national fishing industry.
i understand that the council at a technical level is divided as to whether or not the harvest control rule should be exclusively decided by the council.
i can support these amendments.
our proposal shows that this can be done while at the same time providing sustainability for the industry.
if we want to avoid closure then we need to keep the exploitation rate at.
we really do not need to change this control regulation so soon but of course it is for you to decide.
plans. your general support both on the substance and on the delegation of powers shows that we have the same goal. i can support your amendments and those related to the alignment of the proposal with the new control regulation in force since january.
i can also support those amendments related to the alignment of the proposal with the new control regulation in force since january. two thousand and ten there is only one exception however.
i will turn now to the third report on the baltic technical measures.
this implies a high level of environmental protection but also the establishment of the conditions to facilitate aquaculture operations.
the first thing is that the whole concept of creating an opportunity to allow for a split within the tacs in one fishery is irresponsible to the extreme.
we should strongly oppose that.
secondly with regard to the issue of discards maybe now is the time to look at creating a grey market for those discards.
they are by catches to normal fishery operations and instead of them being thrown back into the water why not allow them to be landed and pay for the cost of catch not a market price but the cost of catch.
this can be a win win situation.
i strongly believe that it is the fishing nations themselves those who have entitlement in particular sea areas who should be making the decisions on stock conservation and management.