kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this new regulation will certainly reduce pollutant emissions for engines installed in non road mobile machinery a very positive step for the environment and the health of european citizens.
at the same time it sets out harmonised rules for the eu markets and aligns with international standards.
ultrafine particles taking up the most recent conclusive evidence on their adverse health effects.
in simple terms this new regulation has two main goals cutting emissions and cutting red tape.
member states count on it to fulfil their obligations on air quality targets industries rely on it to increase their competitiveness and to gain investment and legal certainty and social partners and ngos call for it to improve workers' health and to protect the environment.
with this regulation the competitive position of european industries is strengthened in many regards additional business potential through access to a genuine european internal market reduced costs through reduction of administrative burden and new business opportunities through harmonising technical requirements which give industry
in this way the regulation contributes to maintaining a leader position in the field of technologies through the supply of products of highest quality standards.
recent studies indicate that their relative contribution to total nox emissions could become bigger over time if nothing is done.
last but not least the european citizens deserve it as they can legitimately expect their health to be protected to the best extent possible.
this regulation demonstrates that the commission is delivering.
access to other important world markets such as the us and japan.
in this way it is good for the environment and good for jobs and growth. it is thus not surprising that this proposal received and still receives broad support from the entire stakeholder community.
the commission has acted to propose stricter emission limits resulting in a very significant emission reduction overall. the new regulation addresses the major air pollutants nitrogen oxides hydrocarbons carbon monoxide and particulate matters including limits for the so called
the new regulation provides for more stringent limits for pollutant emissions for engines installed in nonroad mobile machinery.
hence in this way we lay the foundations to create more jobs and boost growth.
i think you did a fair job as a rapporteur in trying to really get the common vision of this house into the negotiations so on that matter i want to thank you.
you can take that home the greens thank you for that role.
now to make you feel more comfortable we also have of course criticism. we will vote in favour of this legislation because it is an improvement to where we are but this is really also a question to the people in this house.
every time we discuss air quality people are saying we mainly have to improve source policies because that is the most efficient way of cleaning up our air address the sources.
but every time we try to address the sources there is a huge lobby saying yes but not our source the other sources maybe but not us' and that was exactly what was at hand here and therefore the result is an improvement to the existing situation but the snowploughs are exempted we have replacement engines that stay on very long
it is a bit of a swiss cheese as a result.
so we fail again to use this moment to really make decent source policies.
i think that is something we have to remind ourselves of in the end the air does not get cleaner if we always exempt the sources. this is an improvement i want to thank the rapporteur but we could have done a better job.
mr president i share the report's attempt to strike a reasonable balance between the health and environment concerns and the competitiveness of eu industry manufacturing and jobs.
the challenge before us is the capacity of making environmental legislation being seen as an economic opportunity.
in ireland in some instances the roma community has been subjected to racism and violent threats.
today roma continue to suffer discrimination in many ways including in education healthcare and housing and in ignorance from meps in this chamber.
in two thousand and nine loyalist elements disgracefully intimidated threatened and eventually forced roma families out of their homes in south belfast.
it is vital that all citizens have fair and equal access to provisions which are after all human rights.
it is not only the european social fund which should be used in the most practical and effective
we already have legislation in place so what we need is stronger enforcement of the existing legislation and very precise insistence on observing the law.
in the newlysubmitted national strategies we see a lot of innovation a lot of good ideas a lot of effort to get rid of the things that do not work and not to waste time energy and money and a really big effort to solve the problems.
we need consistency and coherence in our action.
in particular the adoption of the eu framework for national roma integration strategies in two thousand and eleven initiated a change in roma integration policies in the member states.
i believe our debate today will raise greater awareness and send a strong signal against anti gypsyism and all forms of racism.
this is the fundamental objective behind our action to build societies which offer equal opportunities to all including to roma.
hate speech is getting louder hate crime more frequent. europe's old demons are attempting a comeback.
to be effective fighting discrimination should be mainstreamed into all policies including on education employment and access to services.
roma are eu citizens and as such they should enjoy the same rights and have the same duties as the rest of us.
first by applying the principle of equality before the law.
roma children must not be segregated.
the commission is ready to take action whenever member states are found to be in breach of their duties under the directive. deeply rooted stereotypes and prejudices link roma to criminality anti social behaviour or benefit dependency.
this is at least what i take as the main message from last week's european platform for roma inclusion meeting.
a moral debt to the roma and sinti people wiped off the face of the earth during the second world war and wiped from our memories after the second world war.
i expect the member states to raise awareness about the benefits of roma integration both in roma communities and among the general public.
i agree that anti gypsyism as a specific form of racism must be of serious concern to all of us.
we need to join forces and assume our roles and responsibilities in this process.
this debate is a very small acknowledgement of a terrible debt.
we need to ensure that the solutions are discussed and implemented at local level since this is where the exclusion takes place.
they could address the inclusion problems that roma face in public curricula and teaching materials.
fifteen years ago we put in place anti discrimination directives yet roma are still victims of discrimination. we have legislation in place combating racism and xenophobia yet roma are still victims of racism and xenophobia.
we need to work on their combined enforcement in order to achieve sustainable results.
second by ensuring equal opportunities.
teaching roma children from socially excluded communities to read count and write is necessary but it is not sufficient to create that special feeling of belonging to a society.
europe's tragic past serves as a reminder of our duties and responsibilities towards the future.
the two thousand and thirteen council recommendation on roma integration requests that member states implement measures to combat discrimination and anti gypsyism.
we must confront them.
but although we have put in place comprehensive integration strategies and made funding available and despite our efforts to promote diversity and to highlight the benefits of roma integration roma are still victims of economic and social exclusion and we still see very few real improvements on the ground.
a lot has been done at national and european level over the past few years to foster the integration of roma.
we will carefully monitor these aspects in the member states' reports about their implementation measures at the end of this year.
there are three concrete steps that we can take to improve public awareness and understanding all of which are included in the council's recommendation of december.
it is regrettable that in two thousand and fifteen many roma still live in conditions that are simply unacceptable.
joint eu and national level action is helping but genuine progress the sort that will help not just future generations of roma but also this generation requires something much more fundamental than what is in place today a change in public attitudes towards roma communities.
third and perhaps most urgently we need to empower the roma community to give them a real platform to speak out for themselves and to actively engage in public life as full eu citizens.
according to the eu fundamental rights agency as many as fifty four of roma still experience discrimination when looking for employment.
so improving understanding of roma communities not just of the problems they face but also of their history and rich culture has to be part of the solution.
second raising public awareness about roma people.
member states have stepped up their efforts and are taking action.
it is opportune to reflect on the situation of europe's largest ethnic minority on their circumstances and on progress made and the challenges ahead.
but this is a long road and major challenges remain.
and just over a year ago on nine december two thousand and thirteen the council added fresh impetus to this drive by adopting a recommendation on effective roma integration measures.
that is why four years ago the council established the eu framework for national roma integration strategies.
this framework invited member states to come forward with strategies to promote roma inclusion in four key areas education employment healthcare and housing.
not only is it opportune but it is also necessary because europe's success in improving the situation of roma communities is a measure of our ability to promote integration and tackle social exclusion everywhere.
the european parliament has been very instrumental by keeping the topic on the agenda by assisting with ideas and discussion as well as by reminding the council and its member states of the need to further progress on the issue.
there has been progress.
as we all know intolerance is a common product of misunderstanding.
the unemployment rate is above the eu average and roma children are less likely to finish school.
these steps are key strands of the council's recommendation of december.
this learning must start in our schools and universities and be nurtured across our societies.
they still face deep poverty and social marginalisation.
the european parliament plays a particularly important role in promoting tolerance. with international roma day almost upon us we must celebrate the contribution made by roma to europe's cultural and historical tapestry and we must redouble our commitment to tackling the social and economic challenges they face.
only then can we really make progress on this pressing agenda. i will conclude by paraphrasing a famous advertisement.
roma culture is an inherent part of the cultural diversity of the european union. how aware for example are ordinary europeans of the roma genocide during the second world war?
this is a no brainer and true for every group facing intolerance.
many of you have made the suggestion that there should be a commemoration date of the roma genocide.
as we look back so too must we look forward to ending stigmatisation to properly integrating roma and indeed all minorities into european society and to showing that every european has a place
instead i fully support a review of the lvnavs. we need a balanced review clause because we do not need to predetermine the outcome of this review before it happens.
we could have a situation where there might be a significant outflow of funds and capital from european funds and also from ireland.
i have to declare an interest here because of the five hundred billion money market funds in the eu four hundred billion of those are domiciled in ireland.
finally i just want to say i agree with some of the colleagues who say that we must ensure proper standards in traineeships and internships so that we do not take advantage of those desperately seeking employment.
unfortunately the member states worst affected by youth unemployment are those that have the greatest difficulty in securing the co funding.
this is not new money it is money that is already in the budget but what we voted today was to give member states the possibility to move quickly and put programmes in place to give hope to those young people under twenty five who are not in employment education or training.
parliament has tabled no amendments in an effort to speed up the process so that member states can access their share of these one billion euros in prefinancing that has been put on the table for the youth employment initiative. with youth unemployment still at an unacceptably high level in so many different member states it is crucial that member states take all possible measures to fund the youth guarantee.
in order to achieve this there should be a clear and integrated approach between the activities and competences of eurojust eppo and olaf.
matters of jurisdiction should be clearly defined and there should be a uniform and transparent procedure in all countries. even if the council decides to maintain the collegiate structure decisions on cases and procedures should be taken on a centralised level and there should be strong guarantees regarding the independence of the new institution.
the fight against fraud concerning eu funding is one that i think most of us will support particularly in the context of ongoing cuts to public spending and the importance to citizens of eu funding.
however there remains the question over whether the establishment of a european public prosecutor's office is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity as is evident in the number of eu member states that support the yellow card procedure in regard to this.
the european public prosecutor's office would create an overarching eu criminal body.
it does not matter how much shale gas lies beneath the soil of europe. if we care about climate change we need to leave it in the ground.
as linda mcavan has just said it falls to member states to decide whether they wish to go forward with exploiting shale gas deposits on their territories but that exploitation must be in full compliance with eu environmental legislation.
i would urge the commission to ask for it to be completed as soon as possible.
we need a tightening of legislation with regard to mandatory environmental impact assessments for example and the separation of the licensing and authorisation processes as in offshore drilling.
it does not have a sell by date. its time may come in the future thanks to ccs but for today the only climate friendly way of achieving energy security in europe is to exploit renewable energy sources not shale gas.
it will not go off.
the commission needs to be very vigilant and i welcome the commissioner's statement about commission action in the forthcoming work programme.
finally and most importantly burning gas unabated without capturing the co two is simply not compatible with tackling climate change and the path to decarbonisation.
in every part of the usa where shale gas is exploited house prices crash by twenty five with environmental devastation from hundreds of platforms and huge poisoned slurry ponds.
we are told that most fracking in the usa is by small and medium sized enterprises yet few real smes have the capital or technology for fracking.
they exist solely to spare the parent companies the huge cost of eventual clean up operations which will therefore fall on the taxpayers.
it makes no sense except to lobbyists and politicians in the pay of the companies doing the looting.
the answer to the energy crunch is not short term fracking but long term safe sustainable nuclear power and electricity and hydrogen fuelled transport systems.
the longer term threat to water supplies could be even more costly.
therefore i am questioning whether we need to vote on this amendment for a moratorium given that in many member states there already is a de facto moratorium in place.
but let us deal with some of the facts here and the reports we are dealing with.
we have not issued exploration licences. we have some licensing options to explore the potential but the government and minister have said very clearly that they will do nothing until they see research and that will not be available until.
let us also recognise that article one hundred and ninety four states very clearly that member states are sovereign when it comes to their energy mix and their energy choice. i have received a great deal of lobbying only on one amendment which concerns whether we should urge member states to place a moratorium on fracking.
four six trillion cubic feet of shale which means that we have the largest shale reserves in europe.
we also know from evidence in the united states that shale gas can reduce energy prices by up to thirty which would be a welcome break for hard working people in the uk in a time of recession.
it will benefit my own region in particular because we in the north west of england are sitting on.
this could provide energy for the uk for up to fifty years and create tens of thousands of jobs in the north west of england.
lastly shale gas can also provide us with much needed energy security because we can become more self sufficient and not so reliant on the middle east and russia for our energy supply.
of course this is important.
the public consultation will be open until the end of the year and next year we plan to come with a risk management proposal which should efficiently and effectively address the existing risks.
obviously they are basing their positions on something which is a solid analysis and they are coming to quite different conclusions.
what we already know is that there are considerable risks in a number of areas surface and ground water air quality land use biodiversity seismic risks local communities' traffic and noise disturbances.
by the way they are also learning from their own experiences.
in the context of the moratorium which many of you mentioned what i would like to say is that activities in europe are currently at exploration stage.
we know that we have to address all those questions now.
i think the best proof for that fact is the differences in the positions in the member states;
we have impact assessments in the making.
one two richter scale earthquake in blackpool which is about the same you would get if you slam a door hard and instead they are in favour of the green agenda which is covering my country scotland with gigantic industrial wind turbines driving over a million scots into actual fuel poverty
wrecking the countryside and not reducing co two emissions by a single gram. now we know in america from the full exploitation of shale gas that they have dramatically reduced their emissions.
because if we exploit our massive shale gas reserves in europe no one will ever again build another wind turbine and that would run right against green philosophy.
mr president the honourable gentleman is quite right to point to the fact that there are protests against all kinds of energy development.
what is essential is to cut down on the use of fossil fuels.
however i am sure the honourable gentleman would also recognise that scientists are telling us that climate change is having greater effects than they were predicting even five years ago.
while shale gas is cleaner in these terms than coal it is far less clean than the kind of alternative technologies which already exist and which with a little more investment could be developed just as effectively to supply our energy needs.
the more we use fossil fuels the more we will be adding to man made climate change and the more we will see rising sea levels and other effects.
i would like at least to see that gas coming from within my own country if that is possible rather than bringing it in from the middle east.
you can see this either as an opportunity or a threat.
to a significant extent that was built on our exploitation of a natural resource coal.
but of course there are risks and uncertainties associated with the development of shale gas. one that has been touched upon is the size of the potential seismic activity.
is she aware of the fact that in the past five years in america where they have been exploiting shale gas successfully us emissions are down four hundred and fifty million tonnes while we in europe pursuing a green agenda have seen our emissions actually rise?
do you know that the exploitation of shale gas takes place usually about two zero metres below ground level? the aquifer which you say is going to be destroyed is only a few metres below ground level.
how are the two connected?
shale gas gives us all the opportunity to prove that our generation of politicians considers the continent's natural resources and wealth as a challenge for growth and not as a threat.
this is how we reach optimal decisions in an area involving social and environmental issues industrial competitiveness and in particular public trust.
ten fourteen a european single market for gas has been a concept we have been hearing about from the commission for some time now. one of the key and legitimate concerns of the european energy liberalisation project was that liberalisation would have limited effect unless there were new sources of gas.
whether we use shale gas or not in as little time as we have been hearing about it we have already been witnesses to its significance as a global energy trendsetter for markets energy demand and cost partners.
shale gas could add a new dynamic to the european gas market.
europe needs a vision and a clear message of how gas fits into its energy policy.
if states were still largely dependent on the same external suppliers for their gas liberalisation a single market would not prosper.
it was because of those european men and women who boldly and bravely paved the way for the exploration and exploitation of the continent's resources that europe became one of the leading powers in politics and economy.
we are undermining our industrial competitiveness.
america is now very close to self sufficiency in energy and incidentally is likely to be the world's largest oil producer by.
we are mortgaging our children and bankrupting our grandchildren.
mr president america's industrial competitiveness has been transformed by shale gas.
yet we in europe have turned our back on fossil fuels and gone instead for renewables which are hopelessly expensive and unreliable.
to conclude i believe that we can meet the essence of your requests through the actions that we are implementing or planning. we look forward to engaging with parliament in the follow up of this truly important initiative.
it will take into account the findings from recent studies released by the commission and the member states as well as risk control measures put forward also in your report.
focus in your report.
reduce and manage climate and environmental risks in line with public expectations and in a harmonised manner across the european union. in this respect i am happy to see that our ideas are converging.
up to now most of this has been outside europe. inside the european union resource potentials are still subject to considerable uncertainty.
unless environmental and health risks are addressed in a proper way and people are convinced that they are then the development of this industry will not last. we need to face up to this issue and we need to face up to this issue now. these risks are also the main
as captured well in your report public concerns over health and environmental risks have led a number of member states to consider adapting their national legislation to deal with shale gas projects.