kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the first regulation i referred to establishes a list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing external borders;
this system has proven to be quite efficient as the steps taken by the commission and drawn up in the periodical reciprocity report show and under this reciprocity mechanism applicable since two thousand and five seventy five cases of non reciprocity concerning thirteen third countries of the positive list were notified by member states.
let me mention three types of crime which are truly european and also have an international dimension trafficking in human beings cyber crime and identity theft.
of course organised crime will be included in this.
the commission is determined to reinforce cooperation in this and is also preparing operational and legislative proposals on this.
the commission nevertheless acknowledges that organised crime is a threat to citizens and the economy throughout the european union.
the effective and efficient implementation of the adopted measures depends on the national resources allocated to achieve objectives.
this is why these objectives are part of the stockholm programme comprehensive framework for eu action on the citizens justice security and migration policy for the next five years.
the commission can support member states by financial programmes to cooperate at a european level.
the commission is committed to come up with relevant proposals and to implement the actions to prevent and to combat various forms of criminal activities organised or otherwise.
sharing best practices standards guidelines developing training and research should increase mutual effectiveness and understanding.
i would like to underline that an ambitious approach in the decision making process depends on the political willingness of member states.
recently the commission adopted the stockholm action plan and i think my colleague vice president reding was here just half an hour ago to present it and discuss it with this plenary. furthermore before the end of this year the commission will present a communication on the internal security strategy and that will contain concrete proposals and threat assessments for the coming five years.
common threats require common responses so common tools should be effectively used by all member states public authorities and private organisations.
of the eu stepping up to a target of thirty reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. this communication was actually requested by the environment council in its conclusions dated fifteen march this year.
so needless to say we have had a very short time but we think it is an important debate;
in addition this communication will present as requested under the ets directive an analysis of the situation of energy intensive sectors that it has been determined are exposed to a risk of carbon leakage in the light of the outcome of copenhagen.
could i invite the commissioner to take up with the european central bank the concerns i have raised to see who it is who is using such large quantities of eur five hundred notes?
member states participated in illegal cia rendition torture and disappearance and there was a lack of oversight and accountability.
we still do not have a full calling to account.
it does cover home affairs in order to see how we can help the ukrainian authorities to develop on these matters and how we can deepen our cooperation further.
police cooperation and education as such are not foreseen in the immediate future but that could of course be discussed once ukraine has carried out the necessary reforms.
they are an important neighbour.
we have lots in common.
there are also some alternative financial models that can be used so that it would be in the interest of those taking care of the buildings to make them much more energy efficient.
there will be many ways of doing that not necessarily requiring funds and i would be happy to look into that.
i agree very much with the questioner that one of the areas where we can do so much more in europe would be within the field of energy efficiency and buildings.
there is such a huge potential there and it is just stupid that we use a lot of energy that none of us really benefit from because we are not using it efficiently enough.
to this day i have seen nothing that really goes against the main finding of science namely that we have to address this issue and we have to be serious about it.
the canadian authorities have established an office in prague that is one condition that we imposed on them and they are also establishing a roadmap towards restoring visa freedom again. we have had several high level meetings with canada the czech republic and the commission in order to outline the steps that need to be taken.
we are in dialogue with them and with the czech authorities in order to make sure that the dialogue is still there that there is a constructive atmosphere and that we can move towards a solution to this.
there is a parallel negotiation going on with turkey.
however commissioner you talked about one of the major problems as being access to capital and you mentioned the european investment bank.
however a considerable amount is not being distributed mainly because of the mismatch between the needs of smes refinancing of some sort and the european investment bank objective which is money for medium term investment.
we do not plan any initiatives for the moment on this. these crimes and these deaths are horrible but the commission's competence is limited to cross border crime and to facilitating cooperation between national authorities and european authorities.
i think the honourable member would agree with me that the basic purpose of the long term programme is of course that we should have continuity for the regions in order to plan for the long term.
commissioner does not the original question demonstrate the scale of the problem you face when addressing this issue?
the single european sky proposal is there to help us to further monitor this.
for example i do not know what it is like in your country but in my country there is no such thing as a bank manager any more. we are giving money to banks but banks do not assess people on their track record on their character and on the knowledge of their business.
we got into the mess we are in because people were on automatic.
to some extent they are still on automatic.
if we can get one job in every sme in europe we will end the unemployment crisis.
we have some funding we can provide support for victims and we can encourage further cooperation.
this is based on trust or lack of trust sometimes.
this is demeaning to women.
we do not need the eu making us look inferior or weaker.
so what about the report in front of us?
i want the best company with the best plan for the best price irrespective of how many men and women work in that company.
but the reality is that none of us here have the power to initiate anything.
these numerous eu initiatives and campaigns have not done one thing to help gender equality.
we are perfectly capable of competing for positions of responsibility in business.
but these women these brave women did not give up.
if women one hundred years ago had listened to the reactionary opposition we would still not have the right to vote.
how could we stay silent now?
one thing all of these women that were fighting for equal rights had in common they had to overcome massive opposition in order to change society.
they did not accept the injustices that were imposed on them.
when we are fighting for gender equality in this parliament today we are facing opposition too a loud and aggressive opposition that tells us to shut up about women's rights.
this reactionary opposition tells us not to continue the struggle for full democratic representation for equal pay against violence against women and for the right of women to decide about their own bodies. we could shut up and stay silent;
they were tortured they faced repression they were made invisible or simply laughed about when fighting for equal rights.
how could we not act according to our beliefs and speak up for many millions of women in our societies?
they fought for freedom justice and dignity. each member of this parliament should have these women and also men in the back of their heads when they vote on the tarabella report tomorrow.
if women over the last decades had listened to their opponents violence against women would still be considered acceptable and part of our culture.
for all these reasons we must vote for this important report tomorrow.
this is just one severe example of violence against women that we must stand up against.
finally i am very glad that marc has emphasised the importance of addressing violence against women.
in the uk a study of revenue raised from tax and benefit changes showed eighty five of the total of these cuts have been taken from the pockets of women.
fahma mohamed from bristol in my constituency at the age of fourteen has led a campaign against fgm. women across the uk and the eu have bravely fought against this practice.
this is on top of the stagnation of the gender pay gap that pushes the goal of equal pay decades into the future.
yet the uk government has failed to ratify the istanbul convention.
as a member of the committee on budgets i welcome the recommendation that gender be put at the heart of our considerations on this committee. in addition it is the case that women in the uk and the eu more widely have paid a very high price for policies since the financial crash.
we are getting there without it. we absolutely refuse this and it will not happen on ukip's watch.
we are equal.
mr president while i agree that there is an onus on legislators to encourage women to enter the labour market in greater numbers i stand fully behind the principle of merit and importantly in the european context the principle of subsidiarity in terms of legislation and not the federalism that we have seen here today.
it is estimated by women's aid in northern ireland that twenty five of women will have suffered from violence at some stage in their life.
i reject completely the encroachment of this report on the right to life of the unborn child.
they further estimate that thirty of these cases start during pregnancy a truly shocking statistic.
however i welcome the focus on the serious issue of violence against women.
we should focus on helping grassroots organisations to build capacity and skills and foster personal development.
the role of women in small to medium enterprises and especially in social enterprises is crucial for the eu two thousand and twenty goal of smart sustainable and inclusive growth for example in respect of new green technologies.
the issue i want to highlight is empowering women in entrepreneurship. as a woman entrepreneur and a women's rights activist i know first hand that this is an important way to foster women's leadership in society.
the need for action to empower women is clear. only thirty one of entrepreneurs in the eu are women so from this chamber we must call on the commission and member states to pursue innovative policies to promote women in entrepreneurship.
that is why we need reports like this and i hope there will be a good vote tomorrow. let me say to all of you on the other side of the house equality includes sexual and reproductive health and rights and it is not a new term invented by anybody here.
vastly dominated by men.
women are still under represented in politics.
it is labour leading the way in gender equality and political parity in the uk.
we need to strive for gender equality right across europe to tackle the many problems faced by women on equal pay and pensions under representation of women in decision making positions violence and inwork poverty.
we see this every day;
it is bad for our economy because we miss out on that talent.
in this chamber condemn those who have called this report rubbish because it quite clearly is not rubbish and those who have also called it irrelevant. this is a vital and necessary report something that we do every year and we really do need to make sure that we take stock every year about what is going on. let us just take women's employment.
this is not only bad for women it is bad for europe.
colleagues what we are discussing today and voting tomorrow is a political resolution;
it is not legislation. but it makes it even more important and i think the debate we are having today underlines that.
now i may not agree with every single paragraph in the resolution but i do think it is extremely important that this parliament send a signal tomorrow a signal to women.
what kind of europe will we be shaping in the next five years?
is it the kind of europe that people on that side of the house want going back to the past putting women back in the virtual burka?
or is it a europe that guarantees women's freedom the freedom to choose and decide even over their own bodies and freedom from violence with equality equal rights equal opportunities and equal pay?
colleagues tomorrow we will choose and again we may not like every sentence in the resolution but i will vote wholeheartedly for the report and for women tomorrow.
i would also like to thank mr tarabella and other members of parliament for the report which clearly identifies remaining challenges and future priorities. before outlining my priorities for the coming years i would like to mention the achievements so far.
equality between women and men has progressed over the last years in the eu.
women have entered the labour market in large numbers and contributed to the eu's economic growth and competitiveness.
changes have not happened automatically but are a result of strategic policy initiatives at european national and local levels. in line with its obligations under the treaties the eu promotes gender equality in all its activities from education to work and from research to external policy.
i dare to say that the eu is now a good address for women.
despite progress however gender equality still remains very much unfinished business.
it is necessary to recall the scale of gender inequalities and the unacceptably high levels of violence against women in europe.
gender inequalities affect our society.
they can have a damaging effect on employment and growth rates on wellbeing and on social cohesion. therefore i share mr tarabella's concerns and gender equality will be a priority of my mandate.
in particular i agree that we will have to pursue our efforts to facilitate work life balance and to close the gaps in pay employment pensions and decision making.
these are still very valid objectives.
the proposed directive on improving gender balance on the boards of listed companies remains a priority for me and for the commission.
i am delighted that the european parliament as well as more and more member states support this initiative and i am confident that we will see this directive adopted this year.
i also welcome the recent german bundestag decision adopting the law on gender balance and i hope this will lead also to germany taking a more welcoming approach towards the eu commission proposal.
the commission is ready to help member states to advance in these fields.
i also very much appreciate mr tarabella's vision on work life balance policies. these policies are not only a women's issue.
they should help both men and women to reconcile family and work throughout their lifetime.
i am strongly encouraged by the news that there is movement on the proposal to improve the maternity leave directive.
i am aware of significant efforts in this house to build consensus around a fresh approach.
this seems to me to be a very good and reasonable basis for discussions with the council.
i am convinced that the council of europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence provides a good legal framework for all of us.
i also agree with the rapporteur that the eu needs to grant sufficient resources for awareness raising activities.
a european year on violence against women could be one way of achieving this.
i am not ruling out this possibility but i think it is too optimistic to launch such a year in less than ten months.
gender equality is a long lasting commitment for the eu.
the results of a recent eurobarometer show that nearly all europeans agree that equality between women and men is a fundamental right and a large majority of citizens believe that tackling inequality between women and men should be a priority for the eu.
hidden behind a very serious issue such as women's rights which is absolutely important we have another statist or super state power grab telling companies how many people they can employ and what kind saying what you can do in the household and who does the chores.
dr martin luther king wanted to see in his dream people treated on the merits of their character not on quotas.
you are speaking about attacks on the family and attacks on the things that you care about but i fail to understand how giving more freedom more choice equal treatment to others could possibly attack anything in your life.
is it not by giving freedom to more women that you too have more freedom?
young people in my country are now going to be denied access to working in another eu country.
too many people in our european union today are denied the basic right to use their professional qualification in another member state.
member states should be free to act as they wish as will benefit their citizens as they are in the best position to say what works best for their citizens and their economies.
this report calls for yet more unnecessary interference in the field of professional services. therefore it goes without saying that i cannot support this initiative.
however i believe that member states are more than capable of carrying this out themselves if and when it is necessary.
we would not be here talking about this this morning if there was a great appetite for such actions around europe. the fact that six member states did not submit their national action plans within the deadline given by the commission speaks for itself.
the aim of opening up professions in order to create more jobs and improve the economy is honourable.
this is yet another area where the commission has pushed forward with their political agenda and has introduced more harmonisation.
the united kingdom already has a strong history of trustworthy professionals and we certainly do not need the european union's interference in order to continue this proud tradition.
such statistics do not lead me to believe that a harmonised approach to this subject is the correct approach or that it is even welcome.
very few people would disagree with this.
it is certainly not for the commission to become involved with.
if i made an effort to become a lawyer a doctor an architect whatever then it's reasonable to expect to be able to exercise that profession even outside the walls of my city.
this is the reason i tabled amendment on behalf of my group about it.
we have to provide a clear legal reference for member states in line with the pivotal principles of non discrimination and proportionality. but even with this remark i believe that we are today a bit closer to our vision of a functioning single market.
we believe that this professionality should not be optional but impossible to avoid and that is why that we need transparency and legal clarity.
too often regulation in the member states still operates against this goal while the evidence shows us that the eu countries that have fewer obstacles to cross border competition are actually performing much better than the member states where the restrictions are still in place.
member states should identify and remove the unjustified regulatory barriers in the interests of the citizens to enable them to benefit from the new professional opportunities.
national legislators may not always take into account the external effects on competitiveness social welfare and the single market. so constant modernisation of the legal framework governing professional services in the eu is crucial.
these reform recommendations are also important in the context of the european semester exercise which has addressed the issue of regulation of professions in several instances. while the indicator may not tell the whole story as it is referred to in the report this does not mean that the rest of this story should not be based on strong evidence.
it is only with their active commitment that we will be able to unleash the potential of this important sector for the benefit of our citizens.
this has helped to create a database at eu level offering both an important source of information for professionals and making it easier for them to move.
finally these two policy initiatives will complement and strengthen the commission's enforcement policy rather than replace
this allows us to measure the accumulated burden of different regulatory requirements for some important professional services sectors.
we stand ready to act to address the
that is precisely why we in the commission have taken such a big interest in them. but several studies have shown that the european professional services sector is seriously underperforming and its productivity is lagging behind.
this is a separate exercise which the member states have to do in line with the treaty but it is still helpful in indicating where member state regulation is especially restrictive and where they have an interest in examining that regulation more deeply.
differences in regulatory approaches can sometimes be the reflection of different circumstances but there are also instances where the variance does not reflect differences in national specificities or preferences and where the design of the rules could be improved. to get a better perspective on how restrictive the regulatory framework
i trust that this house shares our objective to deliver this framework.
indeed even by the time they are adopted rules can be outdated or inadequate.
based on the experience with the mutual evaluation exercise it became clear that member states may have difficulties in conducting such a proportionality assessment. also in some cases the readiness to revisit existing regulations seemed limited.
although experience with such reforms in the italian pharmacy and polish legal sector for example clearly show that removing unnecessary burdens creates benefits for all.
month. it fully respects member states' responsibility for the regulatory decisions they
we must create the best possible regulatory framework for professional services a framework that does not restrict professionals' freedom in an unwarranted fashion but one that allows them to contribute maximally to the welfare of our society.
nearly five years ago the council and parliament asked the member states to screen their professional regulation as part of a comprehensive mutual evaluation exercise foreseen in the revised professional qualifications directive because even where legislation aims to improve social welfare the resulting rules will not always best succeed.
indeed the professional qualifications directive reinforced the obligation for member states to ensure that the restrictions they impose are truly justified and demonstrably proportionate.
in order to assist the member states with the removal of specific unjustified restrictions and to identify possibilities for improving the regulatory environment we have put forward reform recommendations for seven professional services sectors.
we continue to work hard to improve the functioning and user friendliness of that database but sadly member states' substantive assessment of the professional rules in place was often of a poor quality or even absent. moreover many failed to grasp this opportunity for reform to improve their regulatory framework
differences in the level of restrictiveness may not be problematic in and of themselves but they do indicate that other countries might have found other less restrictive ways forward.
for a specified profession in a specific country is we developed the so called restrictiveness indicator'.