kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
as a concrete example of the political support the european parliament report rightly mentions the eu's engagement towards the universality of the rome statute and promoting a better understanding of the icc's mandate.
the eu continues to make every effort to further this process with third states in particular during its regular human rights dialogues with some forty countries through systematic demarche campaigns worldwide through the organisation of dedicated local or regional seminars through the systematic inclusion of an icc clause in agreements with third countries and through financial support to civil society organisations lobbying for the universality of the rome statute.
that is why the vice president high representative the commission and their services closely cooperate with the members of the european parliament and with parliamentarians from around the world in the common goal of achieving universality of the rome statute and ensuring the putting in place of adequate implementing legislation.
in this respect it is particularly good to see that the updating and reviewing of the eu instruments in support of the court are in full motion with the new council decision on the icc adopted on twenty one march including a reviewed eu action plan.
the icc will remain an important priority for the eu in the years to come.
we need to make sure that the paris climate agreement is implemented. we are very happy it could have been better but it is already very good that we have the thirty five climate proofing mentioned in that decision.
as for today's ludicrous inclusion of tunisia on the financial blacklist mr president for money laundering or something of that ilk they have done a lot to stop it but they have been included on this list and it is going to damage tunisian businesses and send waves of migrants to europe.
give these third world countries trade deals not handouts.
mr president the external investment plan was set up with the aim of tackling the root cause of migration by helping to achieve development goals in third countries through loans and grants financing projects to create jobs.
we need to give these people trade deals so that they can create businesses themselves.
what can be more ridiculous?
no sooner have we finalised the revision of the elm that will take us to the end of the current multiannual financial framework than we now have to prepare the landscape for eu spending post.
this is particularly the case in the fields of tax avoidance fraud and evasion non compliant jurisdictions the prevention of money laundering and the fight against terrorism.
i thank you for this endorsement and for your support in ensuring the elm was adapted in such a way as to allow the bank to deliver in supporting new and continuing priorities outside the eu up until.
the mid term review of the elm began in two thousand and sixteen and i'm pleased to say it once again recognised the elm as a highly efficient instrument that allows the eib to deliver external and development action with real impact on the ground and at a minimal cost to the eu budget.
significantly the scope of the guarantee has been extended to allow coverage for private sector lending operations under our new economic resilience initiative allowing the bank to take more risk in this area.
i can already say with confidence that given the success of the elm to date and its ability to leverage investments to an order of thirty forty times the budget provisioning required i've no doubt that it will continue to be a key tool for the eu post.
we have demonstrated our ability to react to evolving eu priorities not only with the resilience initiative but also when we increased our lending to ukraine to eur three billion over three years as part of the union's special support package to ukraine. and we have stepped up considerably our support for climate action.
we've also supported additional requirements for the bank in terms of transparency and accountability and i know how important this is to the members of the european parliament.
this is fundamental to the success of the resilience initiative in the southern neighbourhood and the western balkans. the overall increase in the elm ceiling from eur twenty seven billion to eur. thirty two three billion will also help us meet our objectives under the economic resilience initiative while at the same time ensuring that we continue to meet ambitious lending levels across all regions covered by the mandate.
the increase in both scope and size of the revised mandate is i hope a sign that you as co legislators believe in our ability to deliver eu foreign policy goals under this mandate.
i want to assure you that we take these requirements seriously and i will speak more about them later in the debate on the eib's annual report.
this compromise will allow the european investment bank to continue rapidly implementing its economic resilience initiative in support of the southern neighbourhood and the western balkans and to continue supporting eu external policy objectives in eligible countries. as soon as adopted the text will enable the eib to contribute rapidly to the new objectives by providing up to eur.
the outcome is very welcome and reflects successful negotiations.
the compromise will increase the flexibility for the eib to switch amounts under the regional ceiling allocations from the current ten between regions to twenty but only in the direction of high priority regions for the union in particular ukraine and migration response related regions or any forthcoming challenges within the remaining part of the mandate. two thousand and fourteen two thousand and twenty the climate change dimension of the mandate is also reinforced.
politically we have decided to take a more active role in the eastern neighbourhood of the union to support countries which have embarked on a pro european path there and also to engage more actively in the southern neighbourhood of the union to help tackle of course the migration and refugee crises.
we have always said from the beginning that we were going to review the external lending mandate based on the needs on the ground;
to make use of all of this flexibility to enable us to put resources where they are needed and to respect the political commitments which we have made.
i think this reflects the view of the vast majority of the members of the house and of the political groups and it is with great pleasure that we are going to support this. i would also like to thank vicepresident jyrki katainen for the very helpful role that the commission has played throughout the nine trialogues which we held together with two presidencies the maltese and the estonian before we managed to agree on this important file.
it would have meant only increasing the burden on the budget of the union in a very small manner by eur thirty four million and it would have enabled even more predictability in terms of the eib's engagement in the long term.
but i believe that the compromise the solution found is a good one.
we are of course as a parliament disappointed that the council the member states did not agree to increase the overall level of ceilings.
what we have done with these changes to the external lending mandate was to use the flexibility to increase and enlarge it where possible and also to make use of the reduced exposure in turkey due to the fact that less financeable projects could be found there;
we have seen that since the beginning of the external lending mandate.
go to the world bank they do roughly half of what we're doing with eighteen zero people and that is the reason why we are not in each and every place in the world with boots on the ground that's why we need the partnership of other institutions when we are in developing countries too. we only have one hundred people out of three five hundred not residing in luxembourg.
we are the eu bank we are the only institution that's owned and controlled only by the eu and the eu member states and that means the objectives are set by the treaty and by the european council in connection with parliament and the council and the commission.
i will have to come back to many of you because i cannot respond to each and every question right now because of time limitations.
guarantees and loans.
this is a paradigm change in the use of the budget.
that's huge progress and it goes hand in hand with the second big paradigm change in budget policies. it was a hugely courageous move by president juncker to go in the direction of reserving budgetary funds very limited ones by the way eur sixty billion from subsidies and grants to
let me concentrate on just a very few points.
we need to broaden the financial base and the crowding in institution of the european union is the eu bank the eib.
how can you come here and promote the same nonsense?
what you should be doing is helping to encourage trade and you should know this sir because you lived in an east european country which was dominated by socialism and communism for the best part of fifty years.
don't you see the problem that handing money to people to create fake businesses is simply a waste of the taxpayers' money?
that experiment was a catastrophe in russia and a bigger catastrophe in eastern europe. it led to authoritarianism dictatorship and robbing people of their savings.
in this respect external lending could be a powerful instrument to achieve our policy objectives.
however it needs strategic focus and clear direction.
i hope that the european investment bank will be a strong partner in executing our policy objectives.
the eu is not immune to instability behind our borders.
mounting crises mixed with worsening socio economic situations in many countries in our neighbourhood exposed us to unprecedented waves of migration.
however we have been able to react and mobilise resources in order to respond to root cases of migration.
mr coburn you are always very loud you come from a very civilised country and i had supposed that you were a very civilised person especially in this very important institution of the european union. i think that you should have to apologise because you were using the term idiotic' when referring to the junker plan.
i can be very brief.
with this tool we can increase investments in order to achieve our three goals first the sustainable development goals;
the beauty of this tool is that it helps to crowd in private resources in order to address all these or answer all these challenges.
and thanks to the eib's activity we can reach these goals faster and to a larger extent than just providing grant financing for the same purposes.
well thank you for your question.
perhaps economically illiterate' might have been better so i hope you'll excuse me i should use the word economically illiterate' but the juncker plan was economically illiterate as illiterate as these plans that you're trying to put forward at the moment.
thanks again for your question.
we are renowned as the best funder for humanitarian development aid and that makes sense but also we have to work hard to ensure that when there are areas of conflict et cetera that we can do something to bring the situation under control and to stimulate
it is also important to have a number of standardised instruments including one for sustainable energy investment in residential buildings.
we expect a maximum level of private investment here to contribute to stimulating the emergence of properly functioning markets.
in times of serious economic crisis it is more crucial than ever to have programmes with the highest possible level of value added. member states and regions are currently working intensively to prepare their programmes for the next period.
needs to be result oriented and that is why the commission is working on practical guidelines for designing and implementing investment in the area of sustainable energy in buildings in the context of cohesion policy funding.
the uk must continue to contribute to international security attempt to combat the supply of narcotics and of course secure our national interests.
judging by last year's record opium poppy yield and heroin production figures in afghanistan the means by which we do this are not currently working.
the link between security at home and security in afghanistan cannot be ignored and it is important that this link is continually underlined particularly in the face of a sceptical public opinion throughout the european union.
attacks against the supreme court in february as well as a blast in the diplomatic quarter of kabul in may illustrate this problem only too clearly.
life expectancy has been extended and more and more young girls are finding their way into education for the very first time.
mr president the situation in afghanistan does show some signs of improvement but we must not shy away from the very clear gaps in security that still persist. gdp does still continue to grow.
across the country two thousand and seventeen has seen a record high in terms of terroristcaused civilian deaths the highest number for sixteen years.
the taliban nevertheless poses a sustained and credible security threat with isis and the haqqani network among the terrorist groups compounding the problem.
us. second there can be no sustainable development when human rights and fundamental freedoms are not respected.
key achievements include the national strategy for combating corruption and also the successful work of the citizens' charter women's economic empowerment national priority plan and managing migration in the country.
and the government has taken several measures to create a more competitive exportoriented and jobcreating economy. but the work is not finished.
we want to support the country in the areas where it needs it the most.
let us be clear on this managing human mobility is an interest we share with the afghan people.
to begin with it is fundamental to continue promoting peace stability and security.
we must aim to achieve an inclusive peace process as only a regional solution can be sustainable.
secondly ahead of next year's elections we have to advance with the difficult task of state building with special attention given to women's rights and the uncompromised fight against corruption.
moreover we need to accelerate economic and social development.
for example we can explore the ways in which afghanistan could use its vast mineral potential.
we will not forget or let go of this priority.
we all agree that it is not enough but numbers have been steadily increasing.
what matters is that we agree on the political goal and on the importance of the success of the relocation scheme because relocation as i said at the beginning is the most tangible proof of european solidarity towards both the people in need of protection
at this point i want to reiterate the need for member states to respond to the easo experts'
i can assure you that i use all opportunities in bilateral meetings and at all justice and home affairs councils to remind member states that it is the moment to demonstrate solidarity.
what happens in greece and italy today might also happen in other countries one day.
our proposal today will introduce flexibility to ensure that all member states that invest in relocation or resettlement will receive the necessary technical and financial support from the
of our comprehensive migration policy.
that answer is relocation.
just yesterday a relocation forum took place in greece and tomorrow a meeting with all member states will take place in italy to find a common solution in order to increase relocations there too. our aim is to address to the extent possible the objectives behind some of your amendments.
with more than fifty zero people in greece and more than one hundred and twenty five zero arrivals already in italy this is not only the sensible thing to do it is the truly european thing to do because
as we are approaching the last year of implementation of the relocation schemes further action is urgently needed to accelerate their implementation.
eu. this is the essence of our proposal. we cannot support amendments that change the essential purpose or substantially modify the main elements of the relocation procedure as provided for in council decision.
we should not forget what these people went through risking their lives to reach safety.
the same goes for resettlement where member states should have all the tools in hand for delivering on their commitments.
let me remind everyone as the president did this morning that solidarity is legally enshrined in the treaties and these are unanimously agreed by the member states.
call. at the beginning of august i sent a letter to all member states to urge them to increase the number of migrants relocated.
thank you personally mr commissioner for your personal efforts in the whole story.
we should do it but we should not do the one thing to the detriment of the other thing we cannot calculate the numbers so that we take a bit from the big part and put it somewhere else and say the part wasn't so big from the beginning.
we need to put it together and let's not diminish the relocation numbers which are already so small.
the european union i believe can and must do more and the vote tomorrow will be a vote to support the relocation program so it's full support for you and full support for the relocation.
but i would also like to thank the commission especially for the helpful numbers that we always get uptodate.
and resettlement you said it is very important and i guess most of us will agree it's extremely important.
the relocation programme of course has also a lot of floss and a lot of problems.
but there is one thing one thing that is really threatening this relocation programme and the success that we could have with it and that is the unwillingness of member states to really use it to fill it with life.
we need to make it faster much much faster and for that we have proposals.
with the vote tomorrow in the european parliament i think we as a parliament we can give a strong signal that we will stick to the relocation decision that we are committed to it and do not want to see it watered down by places being taken away from the relocation programme while there are still thousands of refugees in greece and italy and more are arriving on a daily basis.
those are the real consequences that we see and we really have to address those big problems.
i think this really has to change also because the unwillingness to relocate has very concrete consequences for the refugees who are stuck in greece or in italy.
we need to strengthen the instrument rather than weaken it.
where is the spirit of working together if member states are not able and willing to relocate even very small numbers of refugees?
this is what is really threatening the programme and some member states have not relocated even a single refugee.
but still i believe it is a ground breaking programme.
there are too few places overall available.
mr president i believe it is high time to wake up and admit that relocation of asylum seekers is not a solution to the refugee crisis in general or the specific troubles in greece and italy.
first relocation in any significant numbers is impossible because of the political pressure within member states especially in those member states where all migrants want to be relocated.
second migrants arrive in greece and italy because from there they can continue to their preferred destination in other words the more we relocate the more will be encouraged to cross the mediterranean.
in short we should help as many people as possible in camps until they can return home instead of relocating a small fraction of them within europe.
especially we must not delegate the control of our external borders to a country like turkey.
we have to learn to live with tighter budgets;
my third point concerns the value for money.
i heard loud and clear those of you who said that we need to have simpler rules so that programmes can be implemented and the level of errors can be reduced.
i want to stress that we would make full use of the new flexibility instrument for new priorities and the global margin for commitments.
demonstrates a very tangible impact on growth rates in cohesion countries for latvia.
is this something that should be supported?
all the funds committed are to be used. i want to stress again that we have drawn very important lessons from the payment crunch in terms of how we can better manage the relationship between commitments and payments in our budget. let us remember that we are no longer in the days of plenty.
not. my last point is on the mid term revision.
in the commission this is a very high priority for us.
there was a question on whether there is a risk that countries will not be able to use the money.
our view is that it will be manageable based on past payment profiles but most importantly on the fact that in dealing with the payment crisis we have had together with member states we have done a very good job
we are very mindful of the significance of all we do and the speed at which we do it for the health of the european economy improving our competitiveness creating more jobs and improving the lives of the european people.
they have presented very clearly the importance of this proposed amendment for the european economy as well as the urgent need for a decision to be taken.
you have our commitment to act on your approval of revision immediately but also to make sure that money flows into programmes that generate opportunities and growth in europe.
we hear that eur twenty billion of commitment appropriations could fall by the wayside.
it means money going back to the european people back to the countries back to the taxpayers.
well i suppose i was elected to give an alternative view and i can certainly say that we are against this because we believe that britain can spend its money more efficiently in support of our regions than by sending the money to brussels to be spent for us.
it has drained financial resources from member states and is not helping member states to recover from the economic crisis.
the opinion of the committee on regional development is in full support of a cohesion fund that is approximately thirty three of the overall budget.
but because of the uk government's failure to adequately get operational programmes agreed there is a real risk of delays in that and we are already seeing redundancy notices and people losing their jobs as a consequence of this failure so it is not cold statistics it is real lives that we are talking about here.
projects delayed or reformatted mean more costs and less economic impact.
for instance the impression is that state aid rules are being applied too stringently to project proposals.
of course this problem has been with the european union since its inception but one would have hoped that by now especially following the recent years of economic crisis efficient solutions to the challenge of spending allocated monies in time would have been discovered.
mr president we proclaim that more new investment is a paramount requirement if european economic recovery is to be sustained.
really effective protection of the financial interest of the union begins with the provision of enough time for the proper preparation and implementation of the relevant budgetary rules and regulations.
all this means exceptional pressure on the responsible authorities to comply with the relevant requirements for proper commitment of resources.
in practice therefore in the course of two thousand and fifteen member states will need to commit the amounts which were previously envisaged for two years two thousand.
and fourteen and two thousand and fifteen furthermore two thousand and fifteen is the last year for absorption of the funds from the previous programming period.
and in the approval of operational programmes.
the commission is hesitant to control member states too much for political reasons and is relying on member states' control systems which are often inadequate.
in this context the delays we are witnessing today in the implementation of a new generation of shared management programmes are not necessarily entirely negative if they result in the setting up of quality control systems which would guarantee that finally most of the funds if not all the funds are well spent.