kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
efsa is not perfect but let us put our efforts into continuous improvement not into undermining their authority.
if you vote for this proposal be careful what you wish for.
i believe that this report goes in the right direction as it draws a solid and common european framework under which member states will be able to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of gmos in their territory.
those saying that such an approach would create an obstacle to the european internal market are wrong and they tend to forget that when it comes to such a controversial and still debated technology affecting european territories the landscape biodiversity and regional specificity the level of discussion should be left as close as possible to european citizens.
the conservation of our environment and the protection of public health go before freedom of choice for farmers or the free circulation of goods within the internal market.
like the majority of voters in every country of europe we reject technology imposed for the profit of giant multinationals without safeguards or consent.
we reject technology that will replace sustainable local family farming with short sighted international agri business. where we part company with the commission is over the way in which the europhiles as always are seeking to exploit such genuine concerns and real problems by pushing for federal european solutions.
this report giving back a little power to nation states is a welcome exception.
but in the long term if the people of britain want to secure the freedom to reject frankenstein foods they will not get it by bowing to the european project.
they will only get it when they reject the rule of the corrupt westminster political elite and their big business puppet masters because it is that out of touch greedy elite which is forcing upon us both frankenstein foods and the frankenstein monster that is the european union. our voters demand the freedom to reject both in free and fair referendums.
the westminster elite is not only allowing reckless multinationals to genetically modify our food their mass immigration policy is also genetically modifying the entire british population just as your utopian multiculturalism is destroying traditional identities all over europe.
this is why both in westminster and strasbourg we the people have to get rid of the elites before the elites get rid of us.
the commission proposal of course is not about whether you are pro gm or anti gm. the legislation will give member states for the very first time a proper legal base to ban cultivation of gm crops. it will give them the power to do so. from the commission's point of view it will hopefully free up the stalemate in the current authorisation process
we wanted to reinforce the view that the principle of proportionality should be taken into account when member states think about introducing a ban on gm cultivation. we also believed and insisted that the freedom of choice of consumers and farmers should also be taken into account by member states when considering a ban and at no time was any legal advice given to us that this would be at odds with the legal basis we were working
otherwise we threaten to undermine the eu authorisation process which i think is very important.
it would also close the uk market to american imports and close the us market to british exports destroying jobs on either side of the atlantic.
there is already talk that equipment produced for the eu army will not be interoperable with american equipment.
defence exports are worth gbp seven billion a year to the uk economy that is the same as we pay to the eu in net contributions every year.
a big part of this will be who the eu gets its weapons from and who it sells those weapons to.
we should limit ourselves and if we do not have a real legally binding regime on arms exports it means that the twenty seven countries of the european union will not have a level playing field. they will compete and fight for orders and there will be no real consultation.
think about cars this is something russian industry is also struggling with.
it will change the situation in the black sea not for better but for worse and also affect eight european union member states around the baltic sea.
it would be tempting for some arms manufacturing countries simply to have a policy to export arms to any country other than ones that it has reason to believe might attack itself or its interests.
different criteria might apply to different kinds of weaponry. countries with poor human rights records such as iran and for that matter those eu countries that lock people up for political dissent or heretical opinion such as half the countries in the eu should be denied small arms surveillance systems and articles of restraint but might not be denied weaponry to protect them from external attack.
countries that are prone to waging aggressive wars but respect the rights of their own citizens might be sold small arms and restraint mechanisms but not weapons of mass destruction.
in particular the united states arguably the most aggressive country on the planet having waged countless destabilising aggressive and illegal wars should be denied any technology that might be used for weapons of mass destruction.
iran however much we might deplore its human rights record and i certainly do has not carried out any attacks on its neighbours.
we might not wish it to have weaponry that could be used to launch an attack and i certainly would not but we might want it to have access to a nuclear shield to prevent it from being attacked.
mr president the conventional arms industry is an important contributor to the economies of many member states including my own the united kingdom.
in an unstable and dangerous world eu member states need the capacity to defend themselves their interests and their allies around the world. however the eu by unanimous agreement intergovernmentally in council has made impressive efforts and progress in recent years to restrict the production and distribution of certain weapons and even ban the supply of arms to certain repressive regimes.
we can be rightly proud of our advocacy in favour of the ottawa treaty which bans anti personnel mines globally.
in the eu's neighbouring countries we work hard under the mpi to monitor arms production and destroy nuclear weapon stockpiles and this should be continued and even intensified.
we must always be vigilant against efforts by terrorists to acquire arms from countries where end user licence regimes and arms exports are less rigorously policed and enforced.
finally the european union should maintain its ban on exporting arms to china for two reasons.
firstly because of the regime's woeful human rights record against its own citizens and secondly to show our support for our democratic ally taiwan which is potentially first in china's line of fire.
the european union does not have a defence industry.
these all belong to the member states of the union so we should not use terminology which says eu arms exports'.
what is more the mistral warships are clearly offensive i stress offensive and not defensive in nature.
therefore before we actually start doing something about the provisions of solidarity foreseen in the lisbon treaty we should make sure that we do not diminish the security of our fellow eu member states or that of our neighbours. i urge the council to do everything in its power to initiate wide
the common position of course urges exporting member states to consider inter alia the preservation of regional peace security and stability.
in the case which seems to be the focus of this discussion we should be aware of the sensitive nature of the situation in both the baltic and black sea regions.
as far as the black sea is concerned we should recall the recent conflict in georgia and the fact that of the six black sea littoral states three bulgaria turkey and romania are nato members and two others georgia and ukraine are nato partners and aspiring members.
we might therefore question the wisdom of the sale of amphibious assault vessels to the sixth russia.
in the eu context this is the council working group on conventional arms exports coarm which meets formally about every six weeks in brussels.
as it is intergovernmental it is the right forum for discussion of arms exports;
the group of countries potentially participating in these negotiations represents more than half of our exports and of our imports of commercial services.
the commission therefore appreciates the fact that the resolution is very supportive of the commission line that in order to allow for later docking' into the gats it is necessary to incorporate gats core articles and concepts in the newly negotiated agreement.
in this context it is surprising that concerns have been expressed about waste management falling within the scope of the negotiations.
firstly the commission is fully committed to defending european sensitivities on so called services of general interest.
waste management is an environmental service and typically an eu offensive interest as is also pointed out in your resolution.
let me once again make clear that liberalisation does not necessarily mean privatisation. these negotiations will not result in any requirement to privatise services such as water distribution.
discussions in this regard will be limited to issues of due process in administrative procedures and transparency.
however to exclude cultural services altogether would imply excluding for example services by news agencies which are an eu offensive interest.
in these times of slow economic recovery the opportunities that more open services markets can offer cannot be underestimated. again thank you for your support.
discussions in the council are progressing well and i think it is reasonable to imagine that trialogues could begin when the new parliament starts its session later this autumn.
we know the difficulties smes have in getting money to finance their growth.
this has only been possible because of the spirit of cooperation and compromise.
we just need to unlock it.
but the most important thing today or tonight is that parliament moves speedily to adopt the text.
infrastructure is an extremely important player when it comes to reviving growth in europe.
we have one of the highest savings ratios in the world.
we fully share your analysis that small and medium sized firms listed on stock markets still have difficulties getting finance.
the legislative framework proposed aims to create a structure that will allow capital owned by investors with long term needs to flow across europe with no extra requirements from the business and projects that need it.
as member states alone cannot provide the financing they need there is an important role for investment funds to play. the real estate sector is also one of the prime employers in europe. real estate funds with some eur three hundred billion invested in them are vital sources of funding for the construction industry.
but we must make sure that we do not lose sight of this objective while setting the definition of which companies can be long term investors.
the reason for the overwhelming success of ucits funds over the last twenty five years is clear.
where long term funds are already available there are sometimes more than fifty different versions of them to choose from.
this fragmentation makes it very hard for investors to make informed choices.
it can also be used to help create new opportunities for investment and growth in europe.
parliament has come to the same conclusions as the commission when it comes to mobilising the maximum amount of savings possible to open the funds to the widest range of investors possible;
currently fewer than ten member states have legislation in place which allows long term funds to operate in them.
the new european long term investment funds with this clear rule and recognisable brand will facilitate the movement of savings into the long term projects that we so badly need.
it also demonstrates that financial regulation is not only about repairing financial systems.
to have the broadest base of investors and that includes retail investors and that is key to the success of this proposal.
this is why we have this proposal for long term investment funds that we are debating tonight.
we do not want to end up helping multinational companies when we are trying to help small companies.
each year between eur one hundred and one hundred and fifty billion is invested in european infrastructure projects.
we are sympathetic to broadening the scope of assets to help them.
they are based on a single coherent set of rules which allow them to function as efficient european investment funds.
given that the aim is to boost investment in the european economy it is reasonable to pursue this objective. we have of course an overriding obligation to ensure that all of our laws comply with the treaty and international committees so for this the commission's legal service is examining whether such a requirement is in fact possible.
but the long term financing of the real economy in europe is currently fragmented and so often european businesses are unable to get the capital they need to grow.
many technical issues have been resolved very rapidly and we are broadly happy with the text that is in front of you today as it reflects the spirit of the commission's proposal to boost long term investment.
the ultimate aim is to help the financing of the european economy and delay will only hold back our growth.
we have the same objectives to relaunch growth in europe.
i will of course pass all their comments to commissioner barnier. this is a long awaited proposal because in practice european long term investment funds will give investors such as pension funds life insurers and others with long term horizons access to assets that reflect the long term investment needs and that will be invested in three types of assets infrastructure programmes projects that require a significant amount of investment for a long period of time
this is something that is vital to reinforce the financial health of the economic sectors and which ultimately will bring growth and jobs.
that is why this tool is so important and i hope that we can make it available to our companies as soon as possible.
as has been said here tonight this is a first step but it is a very important step.
second the under developed capacity;
that will provide the needed evidence base for future action.
two thousand and seventeen two thousand and twenty the commission's view is that the directive's potential still needs to be fully exploited by making more use of it and by applying it more consistently.
and third the insufficient financial security level in many member states.
this would entail high level mandatory environmental liability insurance for operators differentiated ceilings for activities with different risk factors and the creation of an euwide fund to bear the cost of relevant measures beyond the mandatory security in the event of largescale disasters. i also stress
three in this context the ini report rightly calls on the commission to impose liability for damage to human health and the environment in the future and also calls for the removal of certain exemptions.
we have a patchwork of liability systems due also to the interplay with alreadyexisting national laws which in my opinion can undermine the common standards and expose some member states or regions to a greater risk of environmental disaster and the financial consequences thereof.
in this context the commission should further develop inspection support capacity at eu level and help the member states strengthen their national bodies.
as is clear from the envi opinion better implementation of the directive including improving the information base and providing more training and assistance to the member states a key pillar of the commission's action plan and multiannual work programme is needed but is far from being sufficient.
which means removing the limitation in annex.
the directive is underused because it is toothless and its scope is too narrow and it contains loopholes.
also the directive is too limited in its strict liability regime as it can only be applied to a set type of environmental damage as listed in its annex.
in particular it covers them only in the context of certain activities that are included on a restricted list.
it is my inescapable conclusion that for this directive to become genuinely operational and effective we need to revise and enlarge its scope.
we should consider the option of requiring subsidiary state liability to be made mandatory.
in this vein i strongly support the proposal by the rapporteur to consider introducing legislation to assist operators and insurance companies to make use of insurance schemes in cases of environmental damage also by way of examining the option of making financial security mandatory for operators affected by this directive. i am sympathetic to the hesitation in imposing such an obligation on operators but not having a requirement of mandatory security in this regard is simply too dangerous.
mr president i think we need to remind ourselves that this is an implementation report and that the principles behind it are not at question.
this is not an opportunity for members to outgreen each other here in the chamber;
it is actually a consideration of how well this is working.
i understand the temptation to try to extend the scope to air water and many other areas;
these are issues that we all work on day in and day out but this would not be necessary if these core legislative acts those for example on the ambient air quality directive contained clear access to justice provisions based on the aarhus convention that member states currently pay only the slightest lip service to.
you cannot identify shortcomings with implementation and then make it more wideranging less specific more complex and harder to implement.
it simply does not make sense. i would simply like to remind members that the impact study attached to this report says stakeholders' comments during this study indicate that they are not likely to accept the creation of a fund or scheme for a wide range of reasons.
so why deliberately put that in there when actually there are other routes we could take that would be much more effective.
in particular i want to thank the rapporteur mrs lynne for her excellent work in drawing up the motion for a resolution on the commission's proposal and for her efforts over a number of years to improve health and safety at work for workers in the hospital and healthcare sector.
we all know that injuries caused by needles and other sharp instruments are one of the most common and serious risks to healthcare workers in europe in particular in certain departments and activities such as emergencies intensive care and surgical operations.
such measures which are also minimum requirements are not only much welcomed but above all absolutely necessary.
two thousand and six it was indeed the commission's wish to have these points in the agreement.
i also agree with you that the entry into force of this agreement will represent an important contribution to the protection of workers active in the hospital and healthcare sector.
in response to this consultation two european social partner organisations acting in the hospital and healthcare sector the european hospital and healthcare employers' association and the european federation of public service unions negotiated with success a framework agreement in july.
in response to the european parliament the commission initiated a two stage consultation of the european social partners in accordance with the treaty provisions.
i am more than happy that your resolution recognises that the commission's proposal incorporates the major points in parliament's resolution of six july.
two thousand and nine as you know the commission proposal aims to implement this agreement.
healthcare workers from across the european union visited us visited the parliament desperate for our help.
our healthcare workers cannot wait and should not continue to be placed in danger.
two thousand and nine my resolution supports the agreement wholeheartedly. the council must adopt the proposed directive urgently so that the commission can ensure that it is implemented effectively and without delay.
a comprehensive agreement on the necessary requirements was eventually reached by the social partners in the summer of.
many of those who are injured and their families face an agonising wait to find out whether they have contracted a blood borne infection such as hiv or hepatitis
i personally have amended many reports and resolutions calling for action spoken in plenary on this issue a dozen times and tabled countless parliamentary questions.
this nurse and many others like her are continuing to campaign on this issue. i first became involved in two thousand and four when i visited a hospital in my constituency at the instigation of health first europe and then on world aids day on one december that year
this proposal never came but stephen hughes and i did not give up the fight.
juliet was a nurse who died in two thousand and eight seven years after contracting hiv while taking blood from an infected patient in a london hospital.
healthcare workers across europe are depending on us.
following meetings with commissioner pidla we were told in two thousand and eight that a proposal was being prepared by the commission and we were on the brink of achieving this. however at the last minute this was blocked as the social partners promised they would try at long last to reach an agreement much to our frustration.
it is really time now to act decisively.
those of you who had the opportunity to meet with those nurses and other healthcare workers could not have failed to have been moved by their plight and in two thousand and six we passed a parliament resolution on protecting european healthcare workers from blood borne infections due to needle stick injuries.
i hosted an exhibition with stephen hughes in this parliament.
stephen mentioned implementing guidelines and i would like to find out really whether you do know whether the commission is thinking of bringing forward any implementing guidelines for this; i think it is very important that we have these.
we do not want any more needle stick injuries unnecessarily during that waiting time.
the three of us from the political parties went out to the hospitals to find out for ourselves and i think that was what was so important.
also the point which has already been made that although this is for the health sector only at the present moment i would like to see it extended to other sectors like the prisons in particular.
i think it is very important that prison officers are protected as well. there are so many things that are important for those particular workers but one of the key things for this is recapable needles.
in this place we have to be driven by what is actually needed by the people on the ground and by listening to nurses and doctors and healthcare workers it was important to take their views into account.
we have had too many over the last few years.
we have research which shows that health workers working outside hospitals are more likely to be dissatisfied with the response of employers.
his services in fact were the people who kept advising that he should not act that the directive agreed in two thousand on the protection of workers from the risks arising from exposure to biological agents combined with the risk assessment elements of the one thousand nine hundred and eighty nine framework directive were enough to prevent these sorts of injuries but eventually we persuaded those services that with one million injuries per year clearly something was wrong.
we have often criticised him here in this chamber but we could have congratulated him this morning for eventually taking the initiative to bring forward this proposal on needle stick injuries sharps injuries.
whenever a hollow bore needle is used on a patient there is a risk of a needle stick injury that could lead to a serious infection of a healthcare worker because the hollow bore acts as a reservoir for the patient's blood or other body fluids.