kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this is supposed to be a non legally binding document but the danger is that if enough nations sign up to it it may become what is known as customary international law.
so let's be clear what the compact is all about it is an illegal migrants charter.
its purpose is to make illegal migration legal and to facilitate it in greater numbers.
the united nations includes many countries that are deeply corrupt politically and financially.
they cannot provide their citizens with anything resembling democratic and prosperous societies protected by the rule of law impartially implied.
but the one thing that they can produce is more people millions of whom want to flee their homelands and who can blame them?
the global compact is part of the intention of a global political elite to flood europe and western nations with neverending millions of migrants from africa the middle east and beyond.
it is their intention to change the continent of europe into something else in terms of its existing populations culture and civilisation.
every democratic nation state should have the right and freedom to decide its own immigration policy.
what we are seeing in europe now can only be described as invasion and settlement it has nothing to do with immigration policy but is an unprecedented exercise in social engineering in pursuit of an ideological goal.
if european nations need a global compact on migration it is one for international cooperation to protect our borders and control immigration not one to make the current situation worse.
the eu has to speak with one voice and has to take a leading role especially after the us has decided to leave the negotiations.
managing migration requires major investment in comprehensive global development policy especially in human rights social inclusion education justice health and employment with a special focus on vulnerable groups and children. at the same time we need to work in our countries on our perception of migration.
legal and safely managed migration can be beneficial and can be an engine for economic growth and innovation.
it stresses the management of immigration for example by distributing migrants more evenly or by creating new legal avenues for migrants in the hope that this would discourage illegal entry.
the real problem however is the sheer number of people who are coming or who want to come from the third world.
europe cannot integrate them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal. therefore the numbers should be brought down with a stricter asylum legislation and a more efficient return policy.
it is true that europe is ageing and that the funding of welfare states presents a challenge.
it should be understood however that immigration of this kind does not alleviate the problem but makes it worse.
in addition it creates new problems.
in the destination countries the issue is abused by extremist forces.
the global compact is a significant opportunity to improve governance on migration to address the challenges associated with today's migration and to strengthen the contribution of migrants and migration to sustainable development.
the un has a leading role in defending and advancing the negotiations and eu member states must unite behind a single eu position in order to promote a common european vision on migration a vision which will be people centred and human rights based and should provide for long term sustainable and comprehensive measures for the benefit of all parties involved building on the principle of a partnership strengthening cooperation among transit and destination countries in the region.
the quality and the importance of these compacts depend on what goes into them.
why should we be at the table?
we should be at the table because whether you are in denial about migration or whether you're talking about managed migration whether you don't want it or whether you understand as we did as ms corazza bildt will say because we were in niger and we saw the suffering and the push backs.
we were in agadez seeing what migration means millions of people in west africa outnumbering all of the refugees in the european union.
when you see that and you see the demographic needs in the european union if you want to deny it deny it.
but if we have no plan and we're still depending on the geneva convention from just after the war and we have no plan then say we don't want it.
but if we want to have a good quality plan then we participate in the compact.
it is not binding but the quality of this depends on us.
we need them in order to implement the safeguard provisions of the agreements.
the political line to follow and the need for colombia and peru to present a roadmap on human labour and environmental rights.
there is also a consensus that the implementing regulations cannot be in conflict with the commitments undertaken in the agreements and wto provisions. here it is important not to lose focus.
on the trade side the agreements aim at opening markets for goods services government procurement and investment.
but before i go on to explain the importance of adopting these safeguard regulations let me first once again underline the significance of these agreements for the eu and for these two latin american regions. these agreements between the eu and colombia and peru and between the eu and central america will fundamentally change and upgrade the relationship between the eu
i would also like to thank you for the opportunity to clarify outstanding issues regarding the adoption of the bilateral safeguard regulations in the context of the agreements with colombia and peru and with central america.
as well as commitments on labour rights and environmental protection and will foster the promotion of sustainable development.
in short together with your report these agreements will give us an improved stable predictable and enforceable set of trading conditions under which economic operators from the eu colombia peru and central america will be able to take full advantage of the emerging complementarities between our respective economies. beyond pure trade flows let me remind you that these agreements will also improve far reaching provisions guaranteeing the protection of human rights
and these two regions.
the commission welcomes the principle adopted by the rapporteurs when examining the commission proposal and drafting the amendments namely of following the model of korea as closely as the specificities of the agreements allow.
the commission has taken due note of this resolution and is actively working with these countries on
let me now move to the specific question of the adoption of the bilateral safeguard regulations. the objective of these regulations is to provide a safety net for the union's industry in case the tariff liberalisation results in an injurious surge of imports.
these conditions reflect their particular situation and are based on a model we have previously used.
it is unprecedented for the outcome of the international trade negotiations to be compensated as far as the lost market shares for individual products and farmers are concerned but i would like to recall that the commission has made a proposal regarding the european globalisation adjustment fund which the co legislators are called to decide
it would be unsustainable and politically difficult to justify a further increase in the support for the banana producers. the banana producers in the outer regions are the most supported producers in the whole european
this seems to have given them full reassurance in the past and i trust this will be the case here as well.
in. two thousand and six to reflect that the budgetary allocation for the banana producers in the eu was substantially increased.
we have less information on where peru stands but the commission is in regular contact with them to underline the fundamental importance of this exercise.
well when we are talking about the eu free trade agreements with andean countries the hot potato for once is not human rights but bananas. as with all trade agreements we need to ensure that by opening our markets we allow european companies and producers time to adapt to increased competition.
however we have had long and bitter experience with banana wars so we should be careful not to slip on another banana skin by creating further battles.
my group the liberals and democrats will vote against the amendments which by sleight of hand change the banana limits into automatic quotas.
we need to give the commission the flexibility to decide for example if a surge in banana imports from colombia or costa rica is harming eu banana producers or if it is simply compensating for reduced production in other parts of the world.
but for banking union to deliver its full potential it must be complete.
such a situation is unacceptable.
the european union must protect its interests and the interests of european businesses.
it is always a pleasure to get a blue card from your own group.
without going into the detail of the edis proposal and the implications for certain member states and smaller banks what is clear is that the resolution cases that we have seen taking place in europe have not all followed the ideal model that we foresaw when we put the legislation into place.
that just proves my point that there are still some blind spots in the way that the legislation was meant to be.
but i can reassure in some regards the colleague from austria that we are of course also in working on the edis proposal aware that the legislation that we make should suit big banks but also the smaller ones and the particular cases that we have seen in the case of in germany and in austria.
i have just three observations to make.
firstly the last pillar of banking union needs to be done.
i agree with mr karas that it is it is done and i fully back the approach of esther de lange when she spoke to the house about the necessity of having risk sharing and risk reduction at the same time.
we have made progress and it remains to be done in terms of the last issue.
it is really important that we resolve this issue because without resolving this issue we will stop lending to the real economy to households to smes and the longer we put it off the longer it takes for real growth and investment to occur in our economies.
in my own country we have a significant problem with npls in some of our banks which have to be resolved.
we also need a system which works within a code that the ecb have set which is fair and equitable while at the same time recognising the necessity to resolve this issue.
we do need more progress on insolvency laws across europe more judicial guidance and we also need a code that is in place for all member states of the eurozone.
so there we must really see what we can do more at european level as regards aml enforcement.
as has been said several times also by the commission we need to take advantage of this favourable economic moment to complete the banking union.
this time around on many issues related to the functioning of the banking union we have had the opportunity to express ourselves for the first time.
it is a shock absorption mechanism and also comes with governance arrangements that help deal with home host issues. the benefits of belonging to such a system would be particularly pronounced in central europe where member states are host countries hosting a huge number of branches and subsidiaries of institutions that actually come from the banking union area. also at a time of questions on the future of the union and the risks of increased fragmentation a broad membership of the banking union would be a way of containing supervisory divergence and fragmentation and of involving all member states in a common project that fosters resilience and financial stability.
mr president first let me congratulate mr eppink on the detailed work he has done on this report.
in particular i strongly welcome the reiterated request for the incorporation of the basis for calculating fines which we have already discussed.
i welcome this report on the state of play of competition policy for.
i look forward to the reports and the investigations that have been highlighted in this report at the last count eleven reports six investigations into different fields and the re establishment of dg competition's fiscal state aid unit.
hopefully he will continue to play a progressive role in this area.
this is why the commission remains committed to enforcing its firm stance on anti competitive behaviour and mergers.
the commission welcomes the positive tone of the report and the support expressed for our actions in the field of competition policy in two thousand and nine in particular in the context of the economic and financial crisis.
however the gradual phasing out of these measures has already started.
this work will be difficult but the crisis is a learning opportunity we simply cannot miss.
it is not feasible for the commission to produce all these reports due to our priorities and limited resources.
and emerging digital industries.
however as vice president almunia announced to the committee on economic and monetary affairs in november the commission will analyse the effects on competition of the temporary state aid measures taken in the context of the crisis.
the commission will launch a public consultation at the beginning of two thousand and eleven on a european approach to collective redress. it then plans to adopt a communication based on the results of this. finally i would like to refer to the concerns expressed about competition in specific sectors such as energy transport the food supply chain
some measures have been terminated and others have been maintained under stricter conditions. thirdly as regards private enforcement of competition rules the commission takes note of parliament's support for the creation of a european form of collective redress and of its request for specific eu legislation
the commission takes note of the many requests for specific reports or studies more than ten of them.
we share your view that competition is essential to ensure a level playing field in the single market and to promote a sustainable exit from the crisis.
the commission is urged to look at competition in the agro industrial sector yes please and look at it too in the retail sector but then stop looking and do something about it!
it is a very serious problem at a time when we are reforming agricultural policy threatening to cut the budget for agriculture and not looking at the imperfections in this marketplace.
we are having a debate among ourselves and in particular groups in this parliament about what is happening to the agricultural markets and why there is not fair transmission of the final price that we as consumers pay for food to those who produce the food.
mr president let me concentrate on paragraph ninety of this report which states that competition in agricultural production is a precondition for lower prices for consumers in eu countries.
the small person gets no hearing against the state and i would like the commission to take this back that there are some complaints which i as a member have not.
the fact is that these matters should be handled at the national level and not at the level of the commission.
in the last fifteen seconds i have i must address the singularly depressing speech made by mr lamberts when he talked about tax competition.
however the bank rescue in the uk was less swift than it might have been because of the consequences of eu competition policy.
tax competition is why we have lower taxes.
sector inquiries are not always the best way to enforce our rules in a given sector.
the commission's enforcement of the competition rules is essential to enable this.
fourthly on the digital agenda the commission fully agrees with the importance of promoting a truly integrated digital internal market.
they are very expensive in terms of resources and should be used only when the commission's policy objectives make an inquiry necessary.
past experience shows that fair and firm enforcement itself produces positive effects on competition across a sector.
fifthly on smes a level playing field for all companies big and small is essential for them to flourish.
we will continue to inform you about important policy decisions relating to competition and will endeavour to address your requests in our response to your resolution either in the next report on competition policy or on an ad hoc basis as requested by mr btikofer and other members.
it strikes me about these annual debates on competition policy that there is a very friendly and polite exchange of views and then the commission just carries on with business as usual because the commission has the exclusive powers in this area.
you say that you will do one on the temporary state aid framework because that is your priority but we have been calling for such analyses for years on green recovery on state aid to innovation on state aid to public services.
i think at a time where we are discussing economic governance for the european union that should change.
secondly in my view a report should be more than a mere summary of actions taken.
this is really long overdue and i would like to hear from the commission when they intend to conduct such an inquiry.
as other members have pointed out energy supply and pricing can vary greatly between different member states. in the region i represent nearly a quarter of households have no access to mainstream gas and the vast majority of those are reliant on domestic heating oil.
in the one month between november and december pricing in that market rose by over.
it is right that this should be looked at by the domestic regulators first but i am hearing similar concerns from other eu member states.
we need to have a report that is properly implemented in terms of information provision.
i expect that you cannot reply to this issue of a dowry it is something for the commissioner but it would be very unfair to other banks that did not get state aid if some that have been recovered or needed resuscitation suddenly got
i welcome the initiative of the commission with regard to collective redress which is a long overdue initiative. it is also mentioned in the report and i think it is in the interests of the consumers provided it is well defined and well legislated. i think it is good. we will start with the green paper to see what the different opinions are. i welcome this. in the banking sector we have a very strange situation state aid is on different levels in different countries in different stages.
it looks a bit like a vatican based ritual where we have the same things over and over again.
one. so here we have to look at the issue of the level playing field.
in other countries the states are trying to disengage from the banking sector and here there is the danger of a dowry.
i think that we have to look into the follow up to the questions we have asked and i propose that the rapporteur and the previous rapporteur get in touch with the commissioner and with the director general of dg comp to see what happens with the request we made.
this will have to be unravelled.
this is a feature we have often seen in the process of privatisation.
i would like to draw your attention to several aspects of competition policy in two thousand and nine of which many features are visible today.
governments propped up their postal provider just before entering the private market.
some people prefer cosy arrangements and the hot tub of backstage agreements as protection against the harsh world of global competition.
now we should look at the future what is going to happen commissioner?
two thousand and nine foreign direct investment in latin america rose by twenty one and in asia by.
had we allowed a meltdown of the financial sector the savings and pensions of millions of european citizens would have been buried too.
that is my question. another issue is the set of rules for divestment.
another aspect is liquidity support of the european central bank to certain banks in order to keep them alive.
apparently investors regard europe as the continent of inaction only generating poor growth figures.
but once member states start withdrawing from financial institutions to restore their private status there is a danger that they will leave behind a dowry a sort of wedding gift.
commissioner you have to assure a level playing field for entrepreneurial activity in europe to make our continent fit for global competition.
so commissioner i ask you to be attentive to the phenomenon of dowry in the financial sector.
it demonstrates the european union facing a competitiveness deficit.
dowries may be used to prop up the position of financial institutions in the private market.
will it create a transfer economy with low growth and high structural unemployment or will it have a wealth creating economy that stands the test of global competition?
we all know china.
i admit there is an interface between monetary and competition policy but did its impact distort competition?
i hope you will clarify this issue on behalf of commissioner almunia.
work criteria for downsizing companies are sufficiently clear and fair.
this week the united nations published figures on foreign direct investment in. two thousand and ten the united states attracted forty three more foreign investment than in.
that is why it has to end as soon as possible and the money has to be paid back to taxpayers in europe.
but it goes without saying that state aid on this scale created distortions of competition.
member states have gone very far to recapitalise the financial sector by partly and or entirely nationalising institutions with taxpayers' money.
the money goes to where the action is.
i remember it too well in the postal sector.
an economy that is not competitive loses investment jobs and finally the basis of its social arrangements.
the main issue now is the consequences of massive state aid to the financial sector states allocated taxpayers' money to prevent the collapse of the financial sector.
if services like education health and security have value i guess that you have to find ways to finance them.
competition should create a stronger marketplace for eu citizens and allow the eu to be more competitive on a global basis.
in the latest wave of financial services legislation there is a danger that this principle is being lost.
we must use every opportunity to create more competition in markets dominated by large market participants and create a more vibrant marketplace.
in the derivatives legislation currently being negotiated we can ensure that we do not create or reinforce monopolies by supporting open access to ccps and the like and by ensuring the availability of important data streams to all players.
when we consider reforms for auditors credit rating agencies and other financial services providers we can consider where the barriers to market entry lie and work to break them down.
i believe that standing up for competition in key industries is the way that we will generate the true growth potential of the eu and reinvigorate our economies in this ever changing world.
because we forget that the european union is the biggest economy but that china and the us have the bigger markets.
this is because of the lack of competition in the european union across borders and within different areas.
it is a lack of competition that makes us look upon them instead of us as having the self confidence of being in the lead.
that is why it is important in the future that the report on competition should also focus on the lack of implementation of the legislation which is already in place and also on the lack of competition in the european economy.
we need to make sure that there are exit mechanisms and that we come back to normal market conditions as soon as possible.
in our view this would be very burdensome if not almost impossible to implement.
let me also emphasise the importance of this proposal establishing basic safety standards in the area of radiation protection.
the ulmer report brings some constructive amendments to this proposal which aim to increase transparency in decision making and improve the related public information.