kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
and we are waiting for the council to take its position so that we can enter into trilogue before the end of our mandates here. my third point is that we have been crystal clear about ending exports of arms to saudi arabia. in fact we voted for it in a majority four times already and i want to echo our appeal to member states again today to stop selling the very arms that are causing such extraordinary bloodshed in yemen and the humanitarian price that we see of that war is far too high for anyone in europe to contribute to
it. european companies combined represent the second largest market of arms so making sure that this industry serves our political objectives and respects minimal ethical and international legal standards and values is essential for a common european credibility.
it would eventually make europeans minorities in their own lands and change europe and its cultures into something else entirely. if you want to know what that looks like you only have to look at germany sweden parts of the united kingdom and many other
places. several european countries have already said they will reject this compact.
the study of psychology sometimes gets a bad press but it does teach us that the changes we make make human beings uncomfortable.
but if nothing else changes climate will continue to change and human beings will suffer the consequence.
climate leadership is not about playing to the fear of change.
real leadership is about accelerating those changes that must happen and making them work for people.
improved energy efficiency can deliver real gains for those struggling with fuel poverty.
however in reality many in fuel poverty are hard to reach and can be illequipped to take advantage of the measures on offer.
if energy demand and reduction is to go handinhand with an end to fuel poverty every member state will need a clear programme ensuring that energy companies are better able to develop smart networks and incentivised to meet the social obligations of those suffering fuel poverty.
mr president i had the good fortune of chairing most of the debate this morning and it was fascinating to hear the different views.
i have to say from both the council and commission you didn't spare us the reality of how difficult this debate is but i'm going to speak specifically to those who criticise spending on agriculture those who feel that we have lots of food and no worries.
the truth is we have lots of food and you perhaps have no worries because we have a common agricultural policy and we take food security for granted.
there are many fine words spoken in this chamber about a living countryside and looking after the environment and climate and you know that will take resources and therefore i absolutely reject cuts to the agriculture budget specifically because of those extra challenges but in particular because the chair of the committee on agriculture and rural development mr siekierski made this point the incomes for our farmers are much lower than the incomes of others.
ministers discuss the issue every month when they meet in the general affairs council and experts meet every week to discuss the proposals in detail.
no efforts are spared to make as much progress as possible before the end of the year. but as we dig deeper into the commission proposals we also identify more and more elements that will require difficult discussions and ultimately difficult compromises.
this was obvious also yesterday when ministers had a substantial debate in the general affairs council on the mff proposals. yesterday ministers identified by the presidency some topics as key future ones and we have to look at this. to name just a few many ministers intervened on the overall size and distribution of the budget;
those are not issues that will be easy to solve.
and let us not forget the necessity to achieve unanimity in the council.
so if you look at the number of issues on the table and their complexity and if you take into account the overall political context of our work it is increasingly clear that it will take time to finalise the council position.
the mff is not only about numbers because behind numbers we are talking about policies.
that's why these negotiations are an all encompassing exercise and a highly political one.
it is not a secret that some elements are so sensitive that they will require guidance from the highest level.
this being said work doesn't stop in the council.
this is why the vote taking place this week in parliament is very important and the interim report you will adopt i am sure will be looked at in detail by delegations.
this is also why the presidency insists on keeping parliament informed about the progress in the council and organises exchanges of views regularly between the two institutions.
this dialogue and our debate today are very important to make sure that we understand the position of one another and our respective constraints and expectations.
i think minister edtstadler is listening to the debate so do you want to put your question to her?
when i switch my microphone off then you can continue.
while our renewable energy target is not binding at national level it is binding collectively and the commission will be legally required to ensure that it is met.
the system we are putting in place in this regard is positive.
if the commission concludes that the contributions included in the final plans are not sufficient for the eu to meet the overall targets the commission will issue recommendations to the relevant member states to increase their ambition.
for my part i want the eu to tackle the challenges that we have to tackle together all the national challenges migration terrorism the deepening of the single market climate change etc. but i also i want us to reflect on the lines that haven't been effective at all like the globalisation fund for example.
so the mff should be a reflection on our priorities not the ugly christmas tree where everybody wants more and nobody wants less.
as you may know and this has already been mentioned president tusk has proposed that leaders have a substantial discussion on the mff at the december european council.
to feed into the discussion the presidency will prepare a substantial progress report on the work carried out since the commission presented its proposal.
we hope that the substantial progress report will constitute useful background for the leaders' debate in december.
we need the strong political will of all players. i already mentioned at the beginning it will be a difficult discussion and there will be the need for difficult compromises in the end.
we also hope that the progress we made on programmes but also on the negotiating boxes will serve as a good basis for our romanian colleagues when they take over the file in january. let me conclude by saying that i am convinced that this debate was very valuable.
i think we can make a lot more progress by the end of the year.
it is a global solution. i think the global compact will definitely help us to manage human mobility in a much more orderly and effective way. and in particular for europe because for us as europeans the
this is my strong conviction.
it was very similar to some others there was an interesting list of things that you wish to change. i was wondering when you've gone into so much detail about the things you want to change the new taxation the new spending the honourable ideas that you put forward from a socialist perspective would you agree with me that to enact those things there is no other way to do it other than to diminish the power of national states and parliaments to such an extent that really the united states of europe is the only way to enact your opinions and your ideas?
is this the way we should be treating them?
i don't think that we need to reduce the power of national states.
what we need to do is to strengthen this power by combining it with the power of the european union in order to get the necessary resources to finance our budgets.
like that we can finance better public services at national level.
so europe is a must for the power of national states and not a way to reduce it.
we have heard him here before we heard him in the political group and i think that basically the principles and also the aims that he has i would subscribe to.
what i would be critical of basically is the ability and this is what i said of some of the individual commissioners and yes whether it's common agricultural policies cohesion funding whatever i mean there are other policies i think that this is not just primarily as important as it is about cohesion agriculture it is across the spectrum and this is the issue;
increased spending increased government control from this level and an enormous increase in defence spending which is extraordinary for an organisation which was supposed to be about trade at one point.
this increase in defence spending is incredible and unprecedented but all of the increases all of the demands for more much of it a good natured and good hearted effort to try and improve people's lives misses the point.
at some point you will be losing the money from the uk at some point when ms may finally gets around to it but there's an ever decreasing cake and yet there is an ever increasing sense of ambitions desires and wishes to spend.
sustainable solutions are needed for displaced persons.
effective compliance with european standards in the field of human rights is essential in particular regarding freedom of expression and relations with civil society. further efforts are needed to strengthen anti discrimination policy notably gender equality
tangible results are needed in order for montenegro to be able to move to the next stage of european integration.
montenegro's performance this year will be assessed in the enlargement package due in october.
to european union membership will be thoroughly addressed.
it is in all our interests to ensure that the progress of montenegro towards the european union is based on solid achievements and concrete results.
it is also strongly committed to regional cooperation.
and talks with the commission services the government adopted an action plan to address the priorities.
montenegro needs to strengthen its administrative capacity and to upgrade its preparation in a number of areas of the european union acquis. the future of montenegro undeniably lies in the european union and we should act responsibly.
the european council decision to grant candidate status to montenegro is a recognition of these achievements and a strong signal which confirms the credibility of the european union's enlargement policy.
montenegro must improve its electoral framework in line with the recommendations of the osce odihr and the venice commission.
other shortcomings identified in the opinion and in your draft resolution also need to be addressed.
there is a solid record of structural economic reforms and progress in most areas of the acquis.
the strengthening of the independence of the judiciary and the effective fight against corruption and against organised crime will later ensure smooth negotiations and integration into the european union.
previous enlargements have shown the importance of addressing key issues under the political criteria as well as chapter twenty three early in the accession process. early solid achievements in this area in montenegro notably in the politicisation of the public administration
the credibility of our enlargement policy is based on the enlargement countries respecting the conditionality towards the european union and the european union respecting its commitment towards the enlargement countries.
the country has made important progress in putting in place its legal and institutional framework.
it is now crucial to focus on implementation and establish a solid track record.
i am confident that the european parliament resolution will send the right message to montenegro of acknowledging past achievements but also the strong expectation that the reform process will be pursued with determination and that all the key challenges on montenegro's path
i met the new prime minister of montenegro dr igor luki last week. his commitment to pursuing the reform process and his strong determination to meet the key priorities set out in the commission opinion are encouraging. on seventeen february after public consultations with civil society
and the effective protection of vulnerable groups.
in common with the other former yugoslav republics it has had to cope with the collapse of communism coming together with the collapse of the state the war that followed and then having to build a new system on the ruins of the old. this is no easy task and some of the negative features of the previous system have lived on in new guises.
what is important however is the emergence of a younger lite that has committed itself to a european future in which it was certainly helped by the unsuccessful union with serbia.
problems remain of course.
we have heard about some of these the usual ones that former communist states have had to cope with corruption criminality abuses in the administration of justice a not particularly efficient public service and the like. the remedying of these and parallel flaws in the political economic legal and administrative systems
will require a major effort on the part of the leadership and it should be prepared for both active and passive resistance from the beneficiaries of the existing system.
the determination of both lites and public opinion to offer a european future is probably the single most important factor ensuring montenegro's eventual accession to the eu.
in the fight against corruption and organised crime i am glad that in this report we also demand from the state authorities that they refrain from pressurising ngos and civil society organisations that investigate corruption and organised crime. they should be free to do their work and support the state in
that is why i hope that the council will decide to open negotiations with the country really soon.
i have been extremely impressed by the diligence and commitment of the entire montenegrin government.
the onus is now on montenegro to meet the eu's expectations. in particular the montenegrin government needs to address the seven key priorities identified by commissioner fle in the commission's opinion.
i particularly emphasise the issue of corruption and organised crime on which there are clear and well defined benchmarks for measuring progress.
i am pleased that last month the government adopted a very well formulated action plan aimed at responding to these priorities and demands.
more importantly it is hardly the most positive signal to send to podgorica or indeed to countries elsewhere in the region such as macedonia working hard to obtain candidate status.
i only hope that this enforced wait which now is inevitable and is frustrating to montenegro will not result in a weakening of the country's commitment to an engagement with the european union.
montenegro should be judged solely on merit facts and achievements.
montenegro is a small country but a beautiful country which has enjoyed remarkable stability and economic growth since its peaceful divorce from serbia.
it has few if any internal ethnic or religious problems unlike some of its larger neighbours.
its economy remains undiversified sadly relying mainly on tourism and one aluminium smelter. it needs to create more jobs in hydroelectric power for export and financial services may well be another solution.
as acknowledged in the draft resolution we discussed today and in the commission opinion of last november montenegro has achieved a lot but needs to deliver substantially more.
the commission like parliament considers that the dynamic approach would be a more effective safeguard against unexpected deterioration of the economy than a static approach whereby the amount of add back would be determined as a point in time number. the final political agreement with the council was on a static approach but with the dynamic top up that thanks to the parliament's perseverance
that would have the potential to distort the market for government bonds in those member states.
so overall i consider that the outcome of the agreed approach will constitute an effective safeguard for the next five years.
this will work as a safeguard against unexpected sudden adverse impacts on bank capital raises due to a new accounting approach on credit risk provision.
this is why the commission proposed to provide for a specific arrangement to mitigate such an impact.
for member states which are not part of the euro but which issue a lot of their public debt in euros not finding a solution would mean that banks would either have to increase significantly their capital or sell a significant amount of their sovereign bond holdings.
during the negotiations is not subject to any threshold.
mr president after ten years in this parliament i did not think anything could surprise me any more but i was shocked by the fatuity of the proposal of extending the common fisheries policy to recreational sea anglers requiring them to log every catch and count it against their national quota.
i also want to pay tribute to northern ireland's best friend in the european parliament jim allister who is a great champion of the interests of both communities and traditions in his province.
the proposal has not been deleted although it has been substantially bettered largely thanks to a long and gruelling war of attrition fought in committee by four gritty and patriotic scots representing the main parties of that country mesdames attwooll and stihler and messieurs stevenson and hudghton.
so what we are really doing is reducing call costs and data costs for a privileged few meps commission officials european journalists and european businessmen.
let us hope that companies when they try to regain that revenue from elsewhere do not start charging domestic users and particularly the poor more for their calls.
however if we look at the rest of the report and particularly the issue of price caps i think we should recognise that without this regulation prices have been falling anyway.
this at least goes some way to restoring the proper discretion of the member state as to whether to take any steps in relation to the licensing and the recording of recreational fishing leaving it to member states to judge whether there is any impact when in most member states there is not
on the product of fish take from recreational fishing.
mr president the crass proposal by the commission in its original proposition that they should control recreational fishing and require returns and licensing and everything else that goes with such bureaucracy was one of the those proposals which quite rightly
the time has come to end the strasbourg farce to ensure parliament operates only in brussels and make a real contribution to saving public money for better reasons to spend it on.
two thousand and ten but i would be failing those who sent me here for the last ten years if i did not use this opportunity as a protest against holding this parliament in strasbourg at all. it is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' resources.
when i mention this to people in the united kingdom the expense and the trouble that everyone goes to to come here they are absolutely astounded particularly in a time of economic stringency that we should pursue the habit.
mr president there are enormous savings to be had by the creation of a common european grid.
somewhere in europe at any given moment there is surplus electricity and breaking down national barriers will substantially reduce our dependence on imported energy sources.
unfortunately though that kind of model of integration a free market decentralised organic one is not what we have been voting on in our series of reports today.
we are instead going down this road towards harmonisation towards fixed prices towards protection towards a common negotiating position vis vis russia and other third parties.
it is a basic ideological difference in the european union between a free market based on mutual product recognition and a harmonised market based on the reduction of consumer choice the protection of producers and the regulation of authority.
i think there are particular dangers for a country like britain. we were until two years ago the eu's only net energy producer.
even now we are roughly in equilibrium.
mr president of course we are all in favour of lower charges when travelling abroad with our mobiles you would have to be insane to be against that but that is only one part of the equation.
when we in this house oblige the operators to lower their roaming charges they have to find the money from elsewhere and that will usually mean raising the charges for those who do not travel.
there will be teenagers in council estates in my constituency who are now facing higher charges so that a number of businesspeople meps and commissioners can talk more cheaply when abroad.
i have to say we were not disinterested parties.
all of us involved in this vote stand to gain very substantially from the kind of regulations that we have been pushing through in this field over the last year.
if you want to understand how power has shifted in europe you need only read this report. who whom?
' asked lenin in perhaps the pithiest statement of political philosophy ever uttered. who has the power and over whom does he wield it?
the west midlands has the highest proportion of small businesses of any region in the uk.
mr president i supported this report because as we have already heard small businesses are the backbone of our economy.
we can do this by using structural funds and developing microcredit institutions without taking money from the taxpayer.
many member states' plans for economic recovery stress the important role small businesses can play in bringing us out of the present crisis.
the eu also has a key role to play in ensuring that smes have access to funding which means we should ensure that non bank microcredit is made available.
providing that proper consideration is made of member states' competences in areas such as collective bargaining rights this report will go a long way towards making sure that we all think small first.
therefore the importance and influence of this industry is obvious as are its dangers.
under our existing rules which we gave ourselves as a parliament and which we approved by an absolute majority of our members the correct procedure has been followed.
there the commission is putting forward a proposal to change one element of a package of existing legislation and to simply codify the rest without changing it.
we have rightly embarked on a procedure for codifying such legislation putting it in a single readable manageable text.
we often have pieces of legislation amending for the fifteen th sixteen th or seventeen th time some existing pieces of legislation.
that is very confusing for people who have to deal with this legislation.
we frequently have that before us and because it does not change the substance we have a simplified procedure for that. however when it comes to recasting we have a difficulty.
we have voluntarily restricted ourselves to tabling amendments of substance only to the part that the commission is proposing to modify and not to use the codification of the remaining part as an opportunity to reopen the substance.
i know that there is great upset across the other side of the chamber about this matter. i just wanted to lay down a few ground rules that have been ignored so far in these reports. we should watch out for how much money we are funding ngos and agencies where huge problems exist with how european taxpayers' money is being spent at this time.
i give the example of the european fundamental rights agency which is currently under investigation by olaf.
in general terms at a time of huge economic downturn and hardship maybe we should be looking at ourselves to tweak our budget so we can send more monies back to national exchequers where it is desperately needed and where the pain is being felt. and certainly at this time when big almost irrational decisions are being made by businesses and government departments around the world