kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the core of the report concerns the creation of a pan european constituency to which twenty five meps would be elected.
madam president let me start with a quote looking ahead the commission confirms that the union would greatly benefit if a number of members of the european parliament were elected from european lists submitted to the whole of the european electorate.
it will however not be easy to implement and here begin the concerns of the commission.
this was the conclusion of the convention above seven hundred and fifty members an assembly may find it difficult to function.
this proposal also places an extra burden on taxpayers.
an additional twenty five meps representing the whole of the eu will also be expensive both in money terms and in carbon dioxide consumed.
i believe that creating a new constituency covering the whole of the eu is democratically flawed.
at a time of austerity how do we justify spending millions more euros on extra politicians and their staff?
it erodes the sovereignty of the nation states and my group will oppose it.
conduct of elections must remain under the control of nation states. the only beneficiaries of these proposals are the european political parties. indeed i would argue that mr duff wants to create these new meps and an election simply to give them something to do.
the duff report is undemocratic and expensive.
mr duff also wants a new electoral authority to oversee the election of these new meps and an electoral roll for the whole of europe.
madam president the central proposal of the duff report is the creation of an extra twenty five meps to be elected by the whole of europe.
at a time when the eu is seeking to reduce its carbon footprint do we really need another twenty five pan european meps travelling across the whole of their new huge constituency?
these new meps will be accountable only to the european political party that placed them on the list.
we want to bring forward a polling day from june to may to allow for the more speedy election of the commission.
the purpose of this is to transform the european elections by giving the political parties a central role in campaigning by dramatising and
croatian members and to rectify the situation where the present composition is in breach of the treaty principle of digressive proportionality.
european integration in a democratic and efficient manner.
until the eu actually recognises that government for government's sake is a bad thing and that better government comes from national parliaments the electorate will remain detached from the eu.
there is no connection with the eu because the eu is like a parallel universe.
when business asks for less red tape the eu adds more.
on his website mr duff states that so far national politicians have been rather bad at connecting citizens with the eu. the irony in this statement is that if mr duff asked the electorate of the uk whether they wanted more mps elected on a pan european basis they would say no'.
while national governments cut public spending the eu demands more.
it is for reasons such as this that there is no connection and no affinity with the eu.
twenty five pan euro mps will only cause further disenchantment cost more money and become completely removed from a constituency base.
i think that this is an experiment in transnational democracy.
regardless of whether one is a true federalist or more modestly believes in creating a european public space i think that we should support it.
if we want the european political parties to be visible and citizens to take a well informed choice because decisions in this house are taken by political parties and if we are really interested in how effectively our postulates are being realised we should know what these parties do.
if we want a european election campaign to be based on a truly european debate about european issues i think that we should in principle support this proposal.
here i am sometimes amazed when people from smaller countries say that it would actually benefit only big countries. this means that you have no faith in your parties to actually put forward good people.
if the czechs were to put forward vaclav havel i am absolutely certain that many people would want to vote for him people who actually have similar ideas to mine.
but if they were to put forward vaclav klaus i am pretty sure that maybe many conservatives would want to vote for him as well. there are some problems.
we are obliged by the treaty to take it
at a time when european citizens are questioning in ever increasing numbers the effectiveness relevance and above all the cost of the european union we are bringing forward proposals for an expensive extra level of pseudo democracy.
i strongly oppose such a proposal and see it as a perfect example of the increasing disconnect between some members of this house and their electorate.
these show rapidly declining support for the european project and most particularly for this parliament.
if we want to reverse this trend we must find ways of reflecting the views of the citizens challenging the commission to bring forward relevant initiatives and demonstrating added value to member states.
it is not the case that we conservatives do not have dreams.
it is just that those dreams lead us in a completely different direction.
madam president i would like to suggest to mr duff that the reason the vote on his report has been postponed is that his group the epp and the socialists are hopelessly split. the other groups are shall we say less enthusiastic. it is quite clear that there is not a majority in favour of a transnational list and a pan european constituency.
you are just kidding yourselves.
it will further remove the citizens from its politicians.
positive discrimination is wrong it creates victims.
has mr duff even considered the cost of implementing this proposal?
i suspect not.
it is a timely and important question.
it is a big problem and a big issue but as a solution to that we cannot propose less europe but more europe.
madam president i wish to thank the commissioner for the very clear exposition of the commission's position. my particular thanks also to andrew duff as cooperation on this report has been excellent. one of the proposals in the report on direct elections to the european parliament has turned out to be unusually challenging.
there is considerable opposition to the idea of a pan european list which would represent the european interest and strengthen the european identity.
my position is that this controversy deserves further exploration.
after all there is generally a parliamentary majority that supports the broad project of european integration yet the pan european list which is certainly about just such integration is proving unacceptable to many.
my sense of it is that opposition to the list derives primarily from those who place the short term before the long term.
it is true that in the short term europe faces an economic crisis of far reaching proportions the future of the euro is far from assured and instruments to resolve the crisis are still being elaborated.
those who focus on the short term will say that this is no time to be experimenting with a pan european list yet.
in reality the case for the opposite position is stronger.
whatever form the resolution of the crisis will take it will demand more european integration not less.
that will unquestionably mean more transfers of competences and powers to the european union.
the power flows so transferred will require representation that is the heart of democracy and will demand that representation at european level. this is precisely what the pan european list wants to achieve to represent europe and to represent the citizens of europe which is why concentrating on the short term is short sighted and futile.
we do not have the responsibility to democratise each and every partner and there is no such thing as democrat international' but it is true that we need to have a functional democracy within the eu.
and the european commission will carry out audits of national car type approval authorities and have the possibility to initiate eu wide recalls.
i wanted the new rules to be effective sooner given the evidence of abuse uncovered.
so i welcome the fact that european union law will be updated to make type approval rules stronger and more effective.
the new rules will require member states regularly to check cars circulating on their roads for compliance with relevant environmental and safety standards.
there is after all some precedent here. when the fbi was set up in the united states its original purpose was to tackle terrorism and human trafficking and money laundering.
money laundering isn't particularly a problem that afflicts people trying to shift money from one member state to another.
madam president money laundering is a global challenge and it's being met largely with global solutions sometimes slightly more high profile as is the case with the g twenty 's initiatives often in an unglamorous unremarked and unreported way among national regulators.
the question is why does the european union need additional jurisdiction in this field?
all of the same things that were set up as targets for europol and for eurojust. it is of course a good thing to exchange information and to cooperate but we should be very careful before creating a new bureaucracy with power to intervene directly within the national jurisdictions.
of course there is a role for the european union to support global initiatives but i suspect that there are also people who see this as a general opportunity to extend eu jurisdiction.
this means that farmers will still have the choice of cultivating both conventional and eco production but will have to comply with certain standards respectively.
it is estimated that the total value of the eco market in the european union amounts to up to eur thirty one billion.
we need to ensure the credibility of the organic logo and help consumers make informed choices as well as to provide incentives for eco farming in our states.
taking this into account i support this proposal aiming at the harmonisation of production rules and reducing the risk of contamination from pesticides in organic farms.
madam president i voted in favour of this very important legislative proposal. this legal instrument will help us to prevent the cases where the union's financial system has been abused for money laundering fraud terrorist financing or other illicit activities by third parties.
to give you an example my home country latvia has recently become a victim of disproportionate education reform doing away de facto with education in minority languages.
therefore i fully support the establishment of the european values instrument within the next mff.
we are seeing the positive results of similar instruments in the eu neighbourhoods and i believe that the time has come to apply some similar instruments within the eu member states as well.
funding civil society organisations in the member states will help us strengthen civil society promote democracy government accountability and respect for human rights.
mr president i have every respect for daniel caspary but we need to put some facts on the table here.
post trialogue we indicated to the council that three groups the socialists the greens and gue ngl could not initially support the compromise so there was no bad faith or confusion but we felt that there was a qualified majority in parliament for the compromise. that remains the position.
i think every group has behaved with integrity on this issue.
at the trialogue meeting we had a very difficult negotiation.
my own group's position is still that if two thousand and sixteen is defeated we will vote for the compromise so that there is no bad faith and no threat to the compromise.
we are talking about ground handling services and they are a key function in the aviation chain.
they are essential for eight hundred million passengers using eu airports every year and if we want airports and airlines to remain competitive in europe the quality and the efficiency of ground handling services must be improved in the passengers' interest.
mr president honourable members the commission has taken note of parliament's vote to reject the commission's proposal. we regret this outcome as we remain convinced that delaying the auctioning of further emission allowances is warranted given the considerable surplus of allowances already on the market and the fact that this surplus has grown further since the commission presented its proposal.
i would like to thank the commissioner for everything that she has done during her term of office with regard to being able to monitor how spending is done.
mr maka in the budget for the european parliament when we are thinking about the screening process which has just been mentioned please do not forget the role of technologies and the way in which everything can be done in a much simpler way.
we do not need traditional ways of doing things we need to be thinking of the new ways in which we can communicate with our citizens. i suspect that by the end of the next parliament every parliamentarian bar one or two will have a blog. there are over one hundred million blogs in the global system today;
excellent cooperation between institutions.
we have started court cases because of commerce because of the economy because of finance but this is the first time on the basis of the treaty of lisbon and on the basis of the charter of fundamental rights which is included in this treaty of lisbon that the commission has said enough is enough.
if france has not answered in a positive acceptable way before fifteen october this court procedure is going to be implemented.
citizen.
too. the way it is reported sometimes in the press is not complete because cnil has also said very seriously that there might not be ethnic elements but there are certainly databases which have not been authorised
they are subject to suitable safeguards and those suitable safeguards have to be provided by the country concerned.
works. by the way i would like to tell parliament that i am working on the reform of the data protection directive partly with the aim of reinforcing the independence and the intervention opportunities of the national data protection authorities
year. so on the basis of this directive the powers of the commission are rather limited. i will answer the very concrete questions which have been asked in addition to the french
we are in the middle of the proceedings we are in the middle of the fight so we might see it from a different point of view.
under the data protection directive the processing of such sensitive data is authorised by way of exception and has to be notified to the national data protection authorities.
as regards compliance with eu legislation the information provided has to make sure that the situation is covered by the data protection directive.
we decided we are happy with what the french authorities gave us but we cannot close the case because these promises these elements of law these proposed laws are not yet implemented.
there were several databases where the processing of sensitive data was provided for and was notified by the netherlands to the commission in two thousand.
when such notification is made the national data protection authority and the commission are in a position to assess if the measures are in line with data protection rules and here we have the result of the preliminary analysis
we cannot act just because we have a feeling because we are persuaded something is wrong.
that is one thing that i think is some kind of a victory. think about everything which has happened.
case. are there other member states where we could verify the possible existence of databases containing data on ethnic or racial origins?
origin. this database has since been deleted.
sensitive data can only be processed in exceptional cases in cases of public interest;
this shows that the system under the directive whereby the data protection authorities the national data protection authorities are responsible
having said that there have been many debates many scandals and many actions in the last weeks and i think
the commission decided all twenty seven commissioners on twenty nine september to start infringement proceedings against france on the basis of non implementation of those rights of the human being the rights of the individual
there has never been so far in the history of our european union a court case started because of rights.
just this week you published the commission communication on the effective implementation of the charter of fundamental rights.
the communication states that the commission will make full use of its powers to ensure that the member states apply eu law in full respect of fundamental rights and that you will not hesitate to initiate infringement procedures.
in the case of france i wonder why the commission relies exclusively on the declarations of the government when as hlne flautre has just pointed out there has been a series of declarations which with hindsight turned out to be unreliable.
we know that there is a lot of opposition from the member states but we are behind you ms reding.
do we have proof that they exist or do not exist?
do we have a list?
they probably did it with good intentions.
it is that simple.
citizens are watching us.
digital technologies are revolutionising our lives and livelihoods they are helping public services modernise.
the facility will provide the right structures for investment set up innovative financial instruments for broadband projects with the european investment bank and provide dedicated technical assistance to make more projects ready for potential financial assistance.
we need to deploy we need to modernise high speed internet networks and we must certainly remember that digital services can drive competitiveness and support citizens improving their daily lives.
but at the moment we do not have it.
where the markets can still not deliver local regional and national authorities will have to close the financing gap and i sincerely hope that the structural funds will also help here.
i am absolutely convinced;
it is about every sector so to speak. digital infrastructure underpins everything we do across all aspects of the economy and in our society.
we had to fundamentally reorient the digital connecting europe facility.
to do that we badly need infrastructure at the european level interconnected and interoperable.
private markets will do a lot of the work and we need to give them what they need such as a durable framework that rewards investment and cutting the cost of broadband roll out and taking down the barriers in our telecoms single market.
and of course this will only go some way to meet the broadband challenge.
we have to make it easier to interact between public administrations businesses and citizens.
on the involvement of a member states expert group the commission considers that this does not in any way affect our prerogatives or the exercise of our implementing powers. we will add madam president a declaration to that effect to the final act.
that is why we proposed an innovative scheme whereby private investors would take the risk in the knowledge that their investment would be secured by eu public funds the digital connecting europe facility.
building the infrastructure of the future today is as critical as transport or energy networks are today.
i live in county meath in ireland which is not remote and yet in my office where i serve my constituents the broadband is terrible.
on the issue of rural access to broadband i think the point is well made.
there are technical solutions and we need to hear more about them and they need to be affordable for people generally.
so for people who live in much more remote regions they have greater problems.
i am here to just raise it because commissioner you said quite rightly that we have one hundred broadband at least a basic connection and the trouble with that is when you know others who have wonderful broadband connections it is very disappointing and difficult from a business point of view.
it is clear that the connecting europe facility did not work well with the member states.
i think we need to be smart about the way we make digital policies. such policies are definitely desirable with good networks and with good services but the commission really needs to show much better strategic thinking and consistency with their previous policies if this is going to be a sustainable
for e identification for example we have had several large european research projects even flagship programmes investigating the issue which were later not put into active legislation by the commission when they updated legislation from the one thousand.
the top down approach opted for by the commission does not properly take into account the various models that are deployed in the member states and it is clear therefore that they reject what seems to be an arbitrary and sometimes anti competitive approach by the commission to telecommunications.
we should be very realistic.
we are talking about the competitiveness of europe.
for what is at stake and that is the big problem mentioned by all the speakers tonight if we are talking about the connecting europe facility we are talking about money that can be invested in services connected to this digital development but also in infrastructure that would not normally speaking
for with the leverage they can offer because they have a aaa rating we could make it a win win situation and we could have done much more.
basis. just a couple more remarks to make quite clear how important this report and agreement today is for our economic activity.
stake. together with the european investment bank hopefully with much lower numbers we can still prove that it is working and then hopefully later on the member states will realise that perhaps a second chance could make it better. finally i will make sure that all parts of this programme including europeana and safer
that is why we need to raise standards and set them higher.
i think that what is very good in this report is that we are paving the way for doing so.
what we can do is to ensure that we can have the pilot projects showing that this is not futuristic it is realistic and what we can do is to encourage private investors to follow suit because then there will be a change.
we have to create good opportunities for a new and modernistic wave of growth in our european societies but also to bind the european economy together to the biggest market in the world.
the digital economy is the economy that will be the most competitive one and we have paved the way for it and i would like to thank everyone involved in that.
it reduces future costs where we have to pick up the pieces of people whose health has deteriorated and whose educational opportunities have been lost;
the esf itself is about solidarity and that is why many of us in this house would like to see an increase in the monies going to other countries to help them combat poverty.
but i also want to see a reduction in the gap between rich and poor.
as my colleague ms harkin has just been saying what we are seeing at the moment is a disconnect between macroeconomic policy and the effect that it actually has on people's lives on the ground.
in some member states where for example every job vacancy is being pursued by at least five unemployed people before you even begin to look at skills mismatches and geographical mismatches i think it is a little bit difficult to say that we are going to cut the benefits of people who have not found a job when those jobs are not there.
and it keeps the local economy moving.
in terms of the root causes of poverty i for one do not believe that it is about a lack of opportunity.
investment in social protection as this report makes very clear makes sound economic sense.
i want to respond to one or two points made by other colleagues this morning it is a pity they are not still here.
they are about solidarity and they come with interest rates attached.
if our leaders want the support of their citizens for a new europe and they will need that support they need to implement much of what is in this report.