kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this is what we propose through this directive a light framework building on existing national structures a set of common principles and practices for the planning process in the seas and management process in coastal areas that lets member states decide on the content of their plans and management strategies.
establishing a common procedural framework will contribute to coherent approaches across sea basins while allowing member states the flexibility to undertake maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management according to their own priorities for their own waters.
it is crucial that human activity at sea is not developed beyond the capacity of marine and coastal ecosystems to deliver the economic and social benefits on which our wellbeing depends.
better coordination of uses and legal certainty for developments are needed.
it is evident that each activity at sea has a related activity on land which requires coordination.
with the directive on maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management we aim to make a new step in this direction and in this strategy. we want to provide the best possible operational conditions for businesses by addressing the currently largely uncoordinated uses of marine and coastal areas.
we also welcome the broad support to address both maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management in a joint legislative instrument.
the key concepts here are the reconciliation of economic and environmental concerns and the harmonious coexistence of different activities.
the constant increase in maritime activities is accelerating the competition for space and resources in our seas.
at the same time it will also contribute to the sustainable use of our precious marine and coastal resources.
putting the ecosystem based approach at the heart of ocean related decision making and the management of activities also forms an essential part of the chapter on oceans in the rio twenty declaration of last year to which we are all committed.
it also requires the coordination of these processes with neighbouring member states to ensure that informed decisions are taken on the appropriate geographic scale ecosystems maritime activities and the issues that they face are not limited to national borders.
let me underline that an ecosystem based approach is an internationally established adaptive management approach for marine systems that inherently addresses economic and social aspects and therefore covers the three pillars of sustainability.
many member states including my own have already taken extensive action in this field so it is important that existing processes are not affected.
there is no reason to find fault with these objectives but the proposed directive was intended to be a framework directive offering guidelines for member states to follow.
there is now explicit text outlining member states' competence for the content of plans and existing processes in the area of integrated coastal management are now taken into account although i do have to question how realistic it is to think that all these marine plans will be in place within thirty six months.
in addition the time frame really needs to be examined in much more detail.
it seems very ambitious.
the mapping of existing and planned human activities plus dialogue between relevant stakeholders is necessary to ensure the growth and development of our coastal communities.
in addition member states should be fully free to determine the content of their plans and identify their own priorities for their coastal regions. i have significant concerns with the commission proposal which included in my view too much prescriptive detail for a framework directive and as such looked likely to interfere with existing processes and limit scope for future prioritisation at national level. the report which we will vote on this week has made some improvements to the commission text and i am grateful to the rapporteur for her efforts.
on close examination it goes into far too much prescriptive detail.
the european parliament has been very supportive of the commission's proposal and approach and has made constructive contributions.
risks related to natural hazards and climate change go beyond national borders.
it sets up for the first time a framework for coordinated and systematic management of maritime space in all member states. its usefulness derives primarily from the certainty that it provides for projects and new industrial transport investments. usefulness comes also from the capabilities it offers for environmental protection. maritime activity spills across national borders and as a result cannot be managed effectively without eu action.
i heard from commissioner moscovici who is representing the commission in this case about future legislation aiming in particular to eliminate tax avoidance.
i think it is very urgent that the dark clouds that we have all observed are lifted.
there has been a lot of finger pointing this afternoon but let us just recognise that we all have a shared responsibility;
my group leader has rightly said that the united states since the last elections is a lame duck and the world cannot afford a second world power which is completely paralysed by another crisis.
countries to recover taxes evaded and confiscate the proceeds of tax fraud.
the commission must act and urgently.
do you understand that moves towards tax harmonisation are moves that push the uk towards the exit door from the european union?
like caesar's wife our leaders must be beyond suspicion.
in this chamber of fantasies where earlier on today members claimed credit for the fall of communism without mentioning the uk or the usa i find it wholly inappropriate that such matters should be discussed.
i am very happy to hear this but on the other hand if this is the case then we have to ask ourselves another question how is it that those measures have raised so much concern and even outrage among european citizens?
this is something we cannot ignore as lawmakers here in this house.
because if this measure is a result of obscure negotiations then of course it may raise the suspicion of citizens.
it is far too soon for us to commit ourselves to that.
in the future i believe we should produce a plan to identify savings in parliament's budget.
i welcome the savings made on the added value assessment unit which will save us around eur.
our own budget is important and we have to be seen to be making sure that we take the right decisions for the public.
however we should recognise that savings have been made.
two three increase in the budget requested by this parliament calls into question its sense of responsibility.
it appears that meps are willing to operate in the dark and just hand over taxpayers' money without asking the right questions.
i can only ask the british prime minister to accept nothing but a significant reduction of the whole eu budget for two thousand and twelve and hope that parliament will be the one to bear the biggest cut.
obviously in that situation people cannot understand any increase whatsoever even if it is less than inflation.
be that as it may i think we have to make overall decisions we have to give commitments to various things we have to do we are going to see growth in terms of extra meps as a result of the lisbon treaty and hopefully also when croatia joins. one point i would make before i conclude is that all this brings
both imply the absorption of a huge loss.
nothing could be further from the truth.
we do not need the house of european history as europe is losing competitiveness and geopolitical weight.
there are many ways to save money for the european taxpayer.
budgeting is about setting priorities both positive and negative.
in both cases we need far better service for much less money.
the only difference between the two is how the loss gets distributed.
our offices have no temperature control or individually adjustable heating and air conditioning.
we waste a tremendous amount of energy every year.
so as you can see there were four clear actions that we have taken just in the last few years.
we will assess the implementation as required by the legislation by two thousand and twenty and propose additional measures if we find that they are necessary. secondly we have new type approval
the commission plans to review their application and then decide on future steps if necessary.
as i said before we will now use the budget allocated by parliament in pilot projects to prepare a proposal going in this direction.
beyond legislation awareness raising is essential.
thirdly cross border data exchange is the next step.
i hope everybody in europe knows that.
member states must exchange experience and good practices and this is what we promote in the commission's roadworthiness committee which pays special attention to automotive topics.
features. with the new developments on connected cars it will be even easier for manufacturers or independent operators to keep and provide information on odometer
practices. however it has to be enforced by the national consumer
in general. this means companies especially smes and also other businesses such as insurers and car hire
car market. every two years the commission publishes a consumer market scoreboard which shows that this market is one of the least performing for
following. the roadworthiness legislation has been in application only for ten days as i speak and it is the very first european legislation to introduce measures which can fight against odometer
competences to introduce additional
three years. in the european union consumers are protected against criminal fraud by specific national laws and odometer fraud is usually committed by criminal
gangs. however we know that it is very difficult to prevent such fraud and when the car has changed hands often with payment in cash it
operators. it is also a risk for a very large number of consumers. about twenty five of consumers in the union bought a second hand car in the last
fraud. obviously it is too early to evaluate the impact that this legislation
measures. the car pass system for example seems a good example that others may consider
readings. this has to be done by introducing systematic tamper protection strategies and right protection
authorities. therefore it is vitally important that these authorities regularly monitor the practices of economic operators in the second hand
readings. while you can never entirely exclude the possibility of odometer tampering the commission will explore amendments to the legal framework to further reduce this risk as part of the monitoring of the implementation of this legislation.
on the other hand when the car has been bought from a retailer the consumer is protected by eu legislation on unfair commercial
it is legally binding in so far as international agreements can be.
again it showed how important it is that we have our own financial mechanisms through which donations from europe do not depend on the mood of our ministers of finance.
let me also congratulate both minister dieschbourg through mr gira and commissioner arias caete for their important role in paris.
it is an irreversible step towards a lowcarbon economy and even more importantly it is a huge signal to the financial world that only zero carbon solutions will pay off. that is truly important.
mr president the paris agreement the first ever binding global climate deal is a testament to the strong movement that climate activists from all over the world have built after the failed copenhagen summit of.
an unprecedented political recognition of the risk of climate change the agreement is a new source of hope and optimism sending investors and business a clear signal that it is worth investing in the transition to renewable energy.
two thousand and nine i would like to express my thanks for the work of all the committed people who made this deal possible and especially the representative of the commission for forging a strong alliance and france for brokering an outcome that surpassed the expectations of many.
but this agreement with one hundred and ninety six parties shows that it can be done and it shows the power of working together.
and of course the fact that national legislators can now strike elements of this down. but it is really important at a time when people are searching for ways in which the european institutions can deliver that we have this real example of what working together can achieve because it is not easy. we know that working together and getting agreement among twenty eight countries is difficult.
now? i am very convinced as are our scientists by the whole idea of climate protection.
secondly it remains to be seen whether these very often voluntary declarations will be kept. the agreement is based only on constant monitoring and control as well as revision every five years.
but let us be honest it is quite obvious that in our fight against the global warming we the eu are still almost alone.
and we the global community prefer to prevent the damage instead of adapting ourselves. it is a real great success. but there are some weaknesses too.
before that we had the late egyptian warm period and before that the minoan warm period. all these actually coincide with the sun's activity. we have seen that cooling has actually started to happen since the solar cycle twenty four decreased and the sun is very inactive at the moment.
for us we should complete the energy union as quickly as possible and become the renewables capital of the world.
the aim is to keep warming below two c at a time when there has been no warming since one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven and when we know that one zero years ago the earth was warmer than it is today. current records are all too brief. even two hundred and fifty years is insufficient time for a meaningful assessment of long term climate patterns and so called models are only as good as the data in the programming. the climate change industry has become a powerful vested interest so what will this really mean in swindon exeter and penzance?
cop twenty one delegates state a need for cheap affordable electricity but this agreement will have the opposite effect.
already millions in the uk live in fuel poverty having to choose between heating and eating.
the main problem is the demonisation of coal which has been the provider of cheap affordable electricity for many years.
mr president whenever i hear the words historic agreement' my sceptical streak kicks in.
we also have the right policies so we have to implement them.
so it is fine words.
the extra climate effect of the strasbourg circus no we are not going to change that. that is not going to change; we will carry on as we were.
the wording of the agreement is illuminating with phrases such as as soon as possible'.
it would also have been better to have a specific date for the peaking of emissions.
i believe that cop twenty one was successful in that paris managed to unite all countries to take action. elements of the agreement are legally binding and it represents unmatched levels of cooperation which saw governments regions businesses and campaigners coming together.
the current indcs need to be updated because as they stand today they are not sufficient to achieve the.
it means that we require credible plans to decarbonise our economies and protect the most vulnerable from the devastating impact of climate change.
obviously i wanted to see more.
however i believe that this is only the beginning.
it is vital that countries ratify this agreement.
once again shipping and aviation managed to be excluded.
i think we need to recognise what that will mean for us all both in this chamber and beyond.
there is a particular proverb i think is appropriate here between saying and doing many a pair of shoes is worn out'.
finally and perhaps most importantly what impact assessment is being conducted?
so that we understand the full implications of what this will mean for all that we here in this chamber must commit to and must do in the future.
let me begin by paying a tribute to giovanni la via who led the european parliament delegation.
i am the uk conservative spokesperson on energy so i speak only for the conservatives in this particular debate i wish not to speak for the rest of my group. i think it is important to stress that we need to understand what this will mean for all that we are going to try and achieve going forward. will we need again to revisit any of the eu's climate and energy package? that must be answered.
but what happened in paris last week is a real game changer and very important because it will give us reason to be optimistic for the future and that is what we need.
so let us be clear.
the level of ambition shown in paris and the agreement on it cannot be underestimated.
the most positive outcome of paris is the fact that nearly all states and all states means also developing countries and emerging economies are committing themselves to the necessary efforts to tackle climate change. in that sense this is the first universal climate agreement that we have.
that leaves the eu competitively disadvantaged as the only area with legally enforceable emissions obligations.
the economic damage and the sacrifices required from citizens to implement the paris agreement are simply not deliverable in a democratic context.
it is little more than aspirational there is no implementation or enforcement mechanism.
two with this huge range of uncertainty it is simply delusional to pretend that we can set meaningful targets to a tenth of a degree but the real problems we face will be political not environmental.
governments that seek to implement this agreement will create an economic wasteland.
they will be voted out of office.
we have talked about keeping global warming to two c or.
well done to the council;
it is a good deal.
we now have a plan and we now need to deliver that plan.
if we do not deliver the plan then paris will not be remembered.
i do have a worry though and it is about my own government.
we seem to be going backwards in the united kingdom.
we are not doing renewables like we were going to do them;
we are not doing carbon capture and storage like we were going to do and we are now going to expand our airports.
this is going backwards and i hope the commissioner next time he sees the relevant people from the united kingdom will point this out and use his leadership to say that there is now a gap appearing between the rhetoric of the british government on one hand in paris which was fine and the reality on the ground in the united kingdom which is not living up to that fine rhetoric. and the phrase that he could use next time he sees amber rudd is to say to her fine words butter no parsnips.
we respect
four a european union delegation has also observed all the relevant meetings of the central election commission.
we should never compromise on our values and our principles because if we do and if we make these compromises sooner or later we will face more than challenges problems in our own neighbourhood if not within the european union. that
whenever we are talking about political responsibility the right arena is not a court or prison but an open arena and elections.
i do not see a contradiction.
i think we need to be aware of geopolitics but we should not play geopolitics.
let me remind you of the bigger picture.
this position is shared by the college bearing in mind that commissioners would have been attending in a personal rather than a professional capacity.
we should be flexible innovative and creative.
but i also care about her as a politician and my motto here is that whatever the political responsibility and there were many she had to deal with when she was prime minister
at the same time there is one thing on which we should never compromise.
we have to show consistency.
ukraine belongs to europe and we should do our best to avoid it rushing into any kind of asia related project. the sd group will continue to use its relations with the parties of the region to mediate in this delicate situation.
the entire legal system of ukraine has to be reformed.
has been concluded and initiated.
moreover the venice commission of the council of europe participated in the preparation of this criminal procedure code but we have to go further.
the political relationship between the european union and ukraine will not improve without firm commitments and an effective demonstration that the rule of law and respect for fundamental values are applied systematically in ukraine.
the parliamentary elections in october will also be an important test.
the recent adoption of the new code of criminal procedure in ukraine was certainly a step forward and it should improve the quality of future prosecutions and trials.
action to reform the criminal code defining what is to be considered a criminal offence is needed to get to the heart of this problem.
secondly free and fair elections;
we have also recently agreed to engage with ukraine in an informal dialogue on judiciary reform drawing on the expertise of the council of europe. to summarise what we expect from ukraine before we can once again move forward is firstly a concrete strategy to redress the effect of selective justice and prevent
refer not only to the case of yulia tymoshenko but also to cases against members of the former government such as mr lutsenko and others.
access to independent visitors is especially important if we are to build a clear picture of former prime minister tymoshenko's situation and in this respect i welcome recent visits including by members of the european parliament.
we have indicated to the ukrainian authorities that a first step towards regaining confidence would be to ensure an environment conducive to ms tymoshenko's recovery whether inside or outside ukraine and i am glad that president schulz and prime minister azarov agreed last week that the european parliament would play
an important role in this respect.
politically motivated justice is a systemic problem in ukraine and it needs a systemic solution in the shape of comprehensive judicial reform.
most important in terms of ms tymoshenko's legal rights is that ukraine's court of cassation should announce its decision on her case at the end of june and that the european court of human rights can announce its own decision shortly afterwards.
we have repeatedly stressed to our ukrainian partners that we will not be able to move towards signing our association agreement if they cannot show that they live in the spirit of political association. to this end we expect ukraine to make visible progress.
however ms tymoshenko and other victims of politically motivated justice have already been sentenced.
last tuesday at the cooperation council with ukraine we clearly set out to prime minister azarov how we believe ukraine can get back on the road to political association.
but this is exactly what we are talking about here today that in many cases we have the feeling and not only the feeling of selective political justice.
yes the czech government gave political asylum to the former economic minister. as far as i know there were reasons to give him asylum;
but what we should really be talking about is the deficiencies of a consistent strong and strict eu policy.
we should ensure that more for more' is put into practice. respect for the rule of law and democratic values are priorities of the association agenda.
if you look further the way homosexuals were treated in a demonstration which had to be cancelled is a bad thing.
those who represent their countries in ukraine should use the opportunity to draw the attention to the human rights situation.
the definition of ten t corridors and creation of the connecting europe facility have been one of our main achievements in recent years. i am also convinced that transport projects can greatly benefit from efsi the european fund for strategic investments.
i am thinking here about decarbonisation but also about actions against other environmental impacts noise air quality and similar.
this is why our policies aim at improving framework conditions internalising external costs completing missing infrastructure links addressing interoperability issues at all levels and establishing fair competition for all modes. second modern infrastructure.