kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we look forward very much to the support of parliament in those discussions but that is the basic fundamental position of the commission.
the commission's officials and myself will fight for that proposal as we go forward in the trialogue.
of course i understand the question of food security and price of food and so on.
i do not think you would expect me to come down on one side or the other.
the kind of challenges that are in front of us.
if i just look at one figure for example eur one billion less of funding for horizon two thousand and twenty would mean that six hundred smes would not be in projects or five hundred projects would not be launched.
any reduction can damage the programme itself and will damage different elements of the programme. while i am not going to go into the discussions that are ongoing in relation to the mff here i would like to reassure members of the parliament that i have personally as have my officials and my colleague commissioners who are here today and other colleagues in the research family
the same kind of urgency is not being pursued in relation to investments in research and innovation. of course a significant number of member states have reduced as was rightly said investment in research and innovation. so in fact for many member states the only investment or a substantial amount of the investment that will be made in research and innovation will come from the european funds.
i said in response to mr ehler's question at the very beginning that while member states themselves have made crucial decisions in relation to continued investment in research and innovation if i talk about the net contributors for example for a moment it seems that when they come to the collective table of the european council
been using all the powers of persuasion that i have at the very highest political level in member states and at the highest level in the business and research community to impress on those who are going to come to that mff table how crucial investment in the future economy of the european union is.
that is why it is crucially important as i said even when net contributors want to reduce the overall budget that within that proposal they look crucially at what is good for growth jobs and sustainability within the european union.
that is perhaps the only figure that i should engage in here.
as you know commissioner my party sinn fin has been arguing for a more joined up approach on the policy of innovation research and development in ireland both north and south.
as a low performing area only four hundred and twenty four companies out of a business space of seventy zero invest in rd in the north of ireland and many of the smes have no understanding or awareness of their eligibility to take part or to avail themselves of the opportunities.
we think that if we have listened carefully which we have to the technology companies this is what they have said.
so we have tried to push aside the obstacles that are there and that prevent all the innovations that commissioner vassiliou talked about from taking place.
but working together we have pushed forward what we consider to be an ambitious programme in the whole area of technologies.
they talk about all the issues that were raised during the discussions that we had on the innovation union flagship for example as issues that prevent them from further developing within europe.
can i just add to that ms madurell that i feel that the members of the european parliament have a really crucial role to play in all of this because all of you interact on a regular basis with the governments in your own member states.
i think that members of the european parliament are highly respected by their governments and therefore should use the opportunity to impress upon those that come to that mff table as i refer to it how important and crucial it is in helping us to remain a global player to secure a good strong budget for research and innovation in the european union.
i think it would be a pity if the european union lost this opportunity that it has now to really strongly invest in the whole area of research and innovation.
in fact that was one of the reasons why when we defined what innovation meant we were very particular that we did not confine ourselves to manufacturing or ict for example but that in fact we had the broadest possible definition of innovation which included services
we have worked on that basis and in the flagship innovation union initiative we have set out very clearly that all of these aspects of policy are included in the definition of innovation.
when i responded i referred to key enabling technologies which from a manufacturing point of view are the future of europe.
we have done this in the high level group which was chaired by vice president tajani and had vice president kroes and myself as members where european industry and industry which is not european but is working in the european space were very much involved.
for us manufacturing is very important.
certainly my understanding of any discussions and dialogue in the trialogue will be that each side would have to put forward well certainly the commission would have to put forward the impact that cuts would have in the different areas.
i very much look forward to parliament and the council engaging in a real way in these discussions.
in advance of our first trialogue meeting please will you help us by putting some analysis behind what the potential impact will be of the changes that parliament's committee has proposed on how science could be funded and what the impact of those reallocations
you can be assured that we are very conscious of the fact that we need to communicate what our policies are.
as i said it got a lot of publicity at the beginning when it was launched.
it is now being rolled out over a number of member states last autumn for example very successfully.
we are using social media because we think that social media is a really important aspect and an area in which young women as well as all young people get a lot of their information.
it is also important to say that the web is available in all of the languages so there is no excuse at the moment for people to say they could not understand what was on the webpage. it is available in all of the languages and we are you can be assured very conscious of the fact that we need to communicate what we are doing because it is we believe a very positive policy area.
for many years europe has been investing quite rightly in research and we should continue doing that but in comparison with our competitors from around the world we are lagging behind in innovation.
this is exactly the purpose of the eit.
i know that you are a great supporter of the eit but coming from a less developed part of europe i fully share your concern that for the time being the eit and its kics are concentrated more in the core
believe me our purpose and that is why we have made it one of our three priorities for the future of the eit is to extend the knowledge and the benefits that are being acquired from the kics to the less developed areas of europe.
however at the same time we want to give the chance to experts in the various regions of europe to work together with existing kics and the eit in order to transfer this knowledge to the less developed areas and gradually help in building these regional
teaming and twinning are very important elements of the widening participation part of the proposal.
we have had a number of discussions in the council on widening participation and particularly those ministers from the newer member states were very anxious to be able to tie down exactly what each of these proposals meant.
behind the proposal there are specific actions that need to be taken so that we can prove that when you put policies in place it is possible to widen participation and to get a greater family of researchers and institutions into the framework programme.
that concludes question time.
we have to work across borders in europe and we also have to work with neighbours all around the world.
i think we have to be strategic in the way we cooperate.
we have to have flagship initiatives like edctp in other areas around the world and we also have to remember at all times what the strategic interest of the european union is.
i think there is a huge area of cooperation in which we should be involved.
some of those challenges include the many forms of insecurity whether it is crime or violence or terrorism or cyber attacks or privacy abuses for example and indeed other forms of social and economic disorder.
for security in particular the social sciences and humanities have the appropriate tools and indeed also have the methods to contribute to addressing the intricacy of these challenges.
that enhances the social dimension of security policy and research.
that does not mean however that funding which is given for the civilian aspects of security may not be used in other ways but we do not have control over that. what we have control over is the fact that we fund the civilian dimension and aspect of this policy area.
there are a number of significant incidents which have arisen in the member states that you and i know best in very recent terms which show that this is an area in which we really need to support research and provide funding.
i thank the commissioner for her answer.
i have to say that i do not think there is any social dimension whatsoever to the activities of elbit systems and israel aerospace industries.
would the commissioner not agree that this is part of a process of militarisation of europe that is ongoing and includes the development of battle groups?
and does the fact that the irish government is going to coordinate this militarisation process not make a mockery of any semblance of neutrality?
it is no longer the old fashioned definition of military activities rather it is talking about all those actions and activities that are connected with services that are made for our society.
the future economy of europe is connected with research and innovation;
all of this relates to research and innovation otherwise we are losing and we are losing opportunities for the younger generation too.
we have wonderful researchers.
we have great researchers but a lot of our activities and high earning capacities are flowing away around the world and we should keep them here.
on soil protection the commission's proposal for a framework directive on the table is blocked. we see this as a key gap in our policies for resource use and sustainability.
we very much share your concerns on soil degradation and its environmental consequences.
two thousand and ten in spite of this failure and in spite of difficult discussions on an unprecedented economic crisis in europe the spring european council endorsed a new biodiversity vision and target.
we are thus at a very important crossroads where we can follow the right road by fully mainstreaming biodiversity in those policies and reach our safe way home' or we can make the mistake of taking another road and never reaching our final point the agreed two thousand and twenty target and face irreversible biodiversity loss and potentially catastrophic consequences.
much is said in the resolution about the very worrying trends of biodiversity loss in europe and globally the huge pressures exerted on species and ecosystems the possible solutions the value of ecosystem services and their very strong links with the millennium development goals and the fight against climate change.
we fully agree with the very strong emphasis included in the report on the crucial need to fully implement nature legislation without which we will never be able to meet our new target.
ownership of the problem is widely spread and this diffusion has been a handicap because in the end it boils down to the usual problem that when everyone is guilty no one is to blame.
one of the key problems is the very nature of biodiversity policy itself.
it therefore falls to me on behalf of the commission to thank mrs de lange for having prepared this very timely report on the protection of biodiversity and the implementation of eu nature legislation.
certainly the ebrd will face a new and very important challenge with the expansion of its geographical scope to the southern and eastern mediterranean.
the commission has supported this and we see this as a very clear political priority where the ebrd can play an important role.
job creation and social sustainability resource efficiency as well as innovation and greener projects.
this is essential to continue to promote local private sector development and accompany the transition and economic recovery of the ebrd countries of operation.
the ebrd activities are widely appreciated to help countries to implement economic transition.
taken by all our member states.
the commission welcomes and supports tunisia's efforts to remedy the situation.
there is still work to be done by tunisia and until then we have to fulfil our responsibility to protect the european union and its financial system against the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing.
today i would like to reaffirm that tunisia is a privileged partner for the european union and we commit to reassessing tunisia's progress as soon as possible during this year of two thousand and eighteen with the aim of tunisia being de listed both by the financial action task force and by the eu.
we count on tunisia to remove those deficiencies swiftly on the basis of the action plan agreed with the financial action task force and the commission stands ready to provide support.
the commission strongly welcomes the fact that tunisia is now accelerating the implementation of those agreed actions.
this parliament in particular has fought hard to ensure that our rules against money laundering set a gold standard for the world most recently in december when we reached agreement on the latest upgrade of the anti money laundering directive.
we are in close contact and have regular meetings with the tunisian authorities in this regard but there is still work to be done notably as regards regulation and supervision of the non financial sector transparency of beneficial ownership and targeted financial sanctions.
however we are not there yet.
as regards tunisia the situation is clear. tunisia still shows strategic deficiencies in this field which today justify its inclusion on the eu list of high risk third countries.
an action plan was agreed between tunisia and the financial action task force in december.
customer due diligence requirements for designated nonfinancial businesses and professions weakness in riskbased supervision in the financial sector with a low level of sanctions shortcomings in access to beneficial ownership information for legal persons as well as for legal arrangements or inadequate regime on targeted financial sanctions and some other
turning back to tunisia the commission would like to welcome again the highlevel commitment shown by tunisia and its efforts in addressing its strategic deficiencies in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
strong rules in the area help ensure security and stability especially in the current context of terrorist threats in the eu and its neighbourhood.
they are also necessary to ensure a sound stable and solid financial system which is a condition for sustainable growth.
the commission is therefore fully committed to support tunisia in these efforts. this is something i can promise in this place.
we are committed to support and to help.
the european union and tunisia have a privileged partnership and we are here to support our partners.
it is in our mutual interest.
our experts are in close cooperation to provide this assistance.
i also confirm that we will work together to ensure that tunisia can be rapidly removed but the actual timing will depend on tunisia's own efforts.
at the same time i want to reassure you that the eu listing has no punitive intention.
it will not hinder our development policy it will not restrict trade relations and it will not block financial transactions.
we have to ensure the success of this important process by showing from the beginning that the eu's autonomous assessment is objective and based on facts.
so creating swifter cheaper low cost redress is something which will improve consumer legislation and protect the european consumer in the internal market of five hundred million consumers.
there is still much work to be done to ensure that what we are approving here will not be a dead letter but will be effectively implemented.
five hundred million is a lot of people.
i would like to agree with other speakers in relation to goods and services regarding consumers.
i think this gives us an opportunity to do something really positive for consumers in relation to this legislation because as has been previously stated a lot of people are very put off by the cost of going to court.
if a consumer has to go down the odr or adr route they require clear information and that has been broadly spoken about today.
once the odr adr system is in place i think we should also monitor what cases are coming before it in order that we can analyse that and see if there are any patterns where we can also improve our action. i welcome these proposals and i thank those who have been involved in creating them.
although i would have preferred the proposal to go further this is a compromise and a fair conclusion. the rapporteur and other speakers have rightly emphasised the need for one set of rules reflecting both the offline and online realities covering our twenty seven member states and empowering our five hundred million citizens one set of rules twenty seven countries five hundred million people.
we also managed to fulfil one of the obligations set out in the digital agenda for europe.
finally we shall be introducing the innovative odr platform for online disputes.
it certainly marks a step forward as traders who commit to using adr will inform consumers accordingly.
on adr. finally in cooperation with stakeholders members of this parliament and member states we shall undertake a series of flanking measures to promote adr and odr across the european
this means that consumers regardless of sector and of geographical location can address their dispute to an adr entity.
we know that about one in five eu consumers encounters problems when buying goods or services in the internal market.
let me briefly outline the breakthrough elements that these two measures will introduce. first with the exceptions of health and education we have secured full adr coverage.
the commission stands fully behind this agreement and is very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations. these two legislative acts will bring tangible benefits to consumers and traders in the internal market.
both consumers and traders will be able to submit their dispute online in any official eu language and have it dealt with entirely
second we set minimum requirements for the quality of adr entities which have to respect certain principles such as those of impartiality independence effectiveness and fairness. furthermore we will enhance consumer information. despite the fact that the final agreement on this point does not entirely reflect the original hopes of the commission
before i finish let me stress that the commission's work is not
we will also help member states by issuing implementation guidelines
the adr and odr legislation will enable them to solve their disputes out of court in a simple fast and low cost way. this will not only save consumers from often overburdening court proceedings but will also motivate them to seek redress in the first place.
recently i held a press conference on a sweep exercise on online purchasing of videos downloading videos dvds and music and there was a seventy three rate in all member states inspected of deficiencies in implementing certain legislation as regards online trading.
a first reading agreement will be a great achievement for all concerned. we managed to comply with the requirements of the single market act i which called for a fast track adoption of the proposals and the proposals have been adopted very swiftly.
so i also congratulated him on this possibility because i occupied this post three months ago in my own country.
madam president dispute resolutions are self evidently beneficial. most disputes with retailers over goods and services would not be worth taking to court which means of course that consumer complaints would not be considered and unscrupulous traders would take advantage of this.
of course of the various forms of adr arbitration is undoubtedly the best because at least it guarantees an early conclusion.
i have a greater problem with the underlying motive for these measures.
it is not primarily to improve consumer rights but to facilitate online cross border trade in manufactured goods.
this will undoubtedly affect adversely the manufacturing sectors of the higher wage economies of the west and the retail sectors of the west.
we have made sure that procedural rules do not endanger existing systems such as the successful uk financial services scheme.
indeed the adr directive and odr regulation will complement them not replace them.
adr offers a low cost alternative to formal legal action for both traders and consumers alike. it is an efficient way of resolving disputes and i hope coverage across the eu improves rapidly.
both reports were improved during the committee stage and during trialogue.
procedural rules have been made more flexible to respect existing systems and member states have more discretion on implementation.
my group is pleased with these reports and we will support them in the vote later today.
among other topics the report highlights business responsibility investment flows in relation to corruption the influence of corruption on elections tax havens large sporting events and freedom of the media. we continue to insist that the commission and the external action service use all our diplomatic tools so that the european union takes the lead in the fight against corruption by supporting anti corruption institutions in third countries
the future of the guatemalan international commission against impunity which is crucial in its fight against corruption in the country and was also mentioned in my report as a successful example of the eu funded project is now unfortunately under threat. in addition we hear of luxleaks panama leaks russia and azerbaijan laundromats and other cases where we realise that corruption stretches far beyond state borders and is in fact having dramatic repercussions on very serious international policy decisions. we therefore call for the highest possible ethical and transparency standards to be upheld in international institutions and national bodies in order to encourage the european union to have a legal framework in place to deter any type of corruption or fraud.
having said this we must admit that the gap between the policy and implementation still exists and here there is a lack of political will to bridge it as we have learned very well from recent examples.
corruption is regarded as a complex phenomenon of abuse of entrusted power for personal gain which poses serious obstacles for the realisation of all human rights.
as far as aid and financing instruments are concerned we insist that eu funded projects be permanently monitored and that any budget support be linked with concrete reforms towards transparency and other anti corruption measures.
encouraging the sharing of best practices and negotiating enforceable anti corruption and anti money laundering provisions in all future trade agreements that we make. we believe that the european union can become a credible actor only if we address corruption within our own borders. thus this report
thus in this report we reiterate our demand to bring the magnitsky sanctions list against thirty two russian state officials to the council for its immediate adoption.
fear corrupts.
we have made some progress with the agreement that we now have in parliament.
over two years of negotiations have shown that it is politically very difficult to reach an agreement on the whole directive on the basis of what was proposed by the commission.