kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it. they can be on the regulatory side they can be on the legislative side and i am very happy to hear that the commission president is resolved to tackle these issues as well and of course the question of confidence which is decisive for any investment decision in europe and beyond.
before the crisis projects were financed directly through public budgets or the public sector would assume risks to catalyse private support.
council of the finance and economic ministers in december and to the presentation in the european council in december as well.
at the beginning of the year the bank made a study on investment gaps in europe and contributed to the awareness that for seven years now europe has been behind the two thousand and seven investment figures by at least fifteen and sometimes twenty and this is persisting. beyond that for almost fifteen years europe has been suffering from an innovation gap in comparison to our main competitors. our main competitors are not within the union they are outside and in comparison to some of the most advanced of them we have been trailing for fifteen years by almost.
it shows clearly that although there might be quite a bit of wishful thinking in these lists as well projects do exist as do project ideas and project needs so the question remains why are these gaps not being filled by the private sector and by all those who can contribute to filling them?
one month later and christmas has come early.
i am here to deliver on my promise.
i am doing it here at the european parliament because this is the institutional place where important events have to happen.
after years of fighting to restore our fiscal credibility and to promote reform today we are adding the third point of a virtuous triangle an ambitious yet realistic investment plan for europe.
europe needs a kick start and today the commission is applying the jump leads.
it is about people mainly about those amongst our citizens who are unemployed.
we need to send a message to the people of europe and to the rest of the world europe is back in business.
of course we should never neglect the sacrifices that many in europe have made over the past six years to overcome the crisis nor should we stop the push to bring down barriers open up markets and reform what does not work in our economies.
these are necessary but not sufficient conditions for growth.
yes we need fiscal responsibility to restore confidence and the sustainability of our public finances and to complete this virtuous omne trium perfectum we now need to boost investment. no tree can grow on soil and air alone.
the investment plan we are presenting today is the watering can.
for the first time the commission is presenting all three components of europe's future economic success together not pitched one against the other but grouped in one single simple message namely that europe can offer hope both to its future generations
and to the rest of the world as a promising attractive hub for jobs growth and investment.
first because not only are we faced with a serious investment gap but we are caught in an investment trap.
when we talk to investors they all agree that europe is an attractive place to invest in. but when i look at the figures they tell a totally different story.
because investors lack confidence credibility and trust.
secondly because we are confronted with a major paradox.
despite the huge liquidity in the world's money markets and corporate bank accounts investment in europe is not rebounding.
what we need is a smart use of public money geared to unlocking investment.
public expenditure should be used for what it is best at doing funding our schools and welfare systems not servicing our debt.
today we are responding to these european pathologies and keeping our eye on the one ball that matters the real economy.
it is the time for a major political and social consensus a grand bargain to put europe back to work. i often hear that we need fresh' money but what i believe we really need is a fresh start and fresh investment.
national budgets are already stretched.
the european union operates on balanced budgets and the abundant liquidity can allow europe to grow without creating new debt.
however if member states chip in capital to the fund we will not take these contributions into account in our assessments under the stability pact.
what we are going to do is set up the right system that will use available public money to leverage additional capital that will never otherwise be mobilised.
every public euro mobilised can generate additional investment that would not have happened otherwise and it can create jobs.
we will need to look carefully at projects.
destinations for the fresh investment drive should be attractive free of regulatory burdens and linked to economic reality not political expedience.
let me be clear about one thing the money we are putting forward today comes on top of what already exists.
it comes on top of what the european investment bank has already been able to do so far.
it comes on top of all the existing programmes which are already investing in infrastructure innovation and european small and medium sized enterprises.
perhaps most importantly it comes on top of what member states can do to help themselves for member states must also support the investment environment through better use of public money and a greater commitment to structural reforms.
i have a vision of european hospitals saving lives with state of the art medical equipment.
i have a vision of a french commuter being able to charge his electric car along the motorway in the same way we fill up with petrol today.
households and companies want to benefit from technological progress and are crying out for action to become more energy efficient.
our energy sector needs to interconnect networks and markets integrate renewable sources of energy and diversify our sources of supply.
investing in people that is what the social market economy is about.
this is the challenge of a generation.
today we are setting up the new architecture which will make this possible.
the key is to provide a risk bearing capacity that can unlock additional investment.
first we are creating a new european fund for strategic investments guaranteed with public money from the eu budget and the european investment bank.
but this is not the case.
we are not just moving money around;
instruments. the ground breaking investment plan mobilising all levels of government is the missing part of the puzzle the third point in the virtuous
environment. we are offering hope to millions of europeans disillusioned after years of
stagnation. yes europe can still become the epicentre of a major investment
persevere. now that we are going in the right direction there will be no
commissioner in my own country the freedom of information act one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven has revolutionised the ways decisions are made by public bodies and by public officials. if a decision maker believes that his or her determination may be the subject of a freedom of information request he or she will be much more diligent in ensuring that proper procedure is followed.
however notwithstanding all of this the fees incurred by individuals under the current freedom of information system in ireland acts as a barrier to full access to pubic information.
so whatever system is decided upon i would encourage my colleagues to take cognisance of the problems in the irish context concerning fees when deciding on practical issues in this proposal.
this is what legal scholars term the virtuous cycle of public administration.
i welcome the fact that this legislation is intended to cover not only parliament commission and council but all eu public bodies excepting the derogations in relation to the banks.
article one of the treaty provides that decisions should be taken as openly and closely as possible to the citizens.
these guidelines must be clear accessible predictable and easy to understand and implement.
every european citizen has the right to access eu documents and this right should be respected.
on the issue of data protection and the balance can i just say to you do not take my word for it but take the word of the european data protection supervisor who believes looking at the bavarian judgment case that we have got the balance absolutely right.
if you have them even as late as today i will consider them this evening and if necessary adjust my voting list because as you know ms sommer i am always reasonable.
i would refer you to my amendments no ten and no forty which balance absolutely the right of privacy and data protection.
madam president i am afraid that was a deliberate attempt to mislead this house. it is quite clear to me from the opposition that is coming from the epp group that they have failed to read the entire regulation.
mr pirker i ask you to go back read the regulation in its entirety and look at the exceptions covered in article.
four all of the concerns raised here this afternoon are a mere camouflage because of the fact that you do not want to give citizens their right of access and accountability.
you cannot select one article or one recital; because there are checks and balances.
i truly believe that the eu institutions and the commission are among the most transparent in the world. they would stand comparison in this respect to any member state in the european union.
as i have stated the commission is looking forward to discussions with the co legislators and will participate actively with a view to reaching a balanced compromise.
in the meantime the commission will continue to work proactively on increasing transparency.
of course i will not be able to respond to all the comments or all the points raised so allow me to take this opportunity to set the record straight on some of the critical remarks on the commission's proposal.
in light of the progress of these discussions the commission will decide on further steps and will do its utmost to contribute to finding common ground between the co legislators.
i cannot accept some of the claims that the commission is against transparency;
this house should lead by example and show a culture of transparency and accountability.
ms sommer i think that is precisely the point to give citizens the power to influence the procedure.
there is also the members' statute about political meetings about the conduct of meps and about personnel which cannot be overridden within this regulation.
they are absolutely respected and the data protection supervisor says that in our report we have got the balance absolutely right.
whether the council negotiates on this is irrelevant because what you cannot do which is what the commission and indeed the council are trying to do is to diminish the rights they gave to citizens in.
where there are problems i am happy to address them on behalf of the entire parliament because the brilliant thing is that whether this gets voted through or not tomorrow is neither here nor there.
we negotiate on the basis of principle and on what we wish to actually defend for our citizens and indeed our political parties.
can we please stop treating our citizens and indeed the ngos that represent them as children? they want to be engaged in the political process and if they do not know what we are doing in their name and what the commission and the council is doing how on earth can we call ourselves democratic'?
if we are pro european let us actually get rid of the secrecy because then it is much more difficult to misrepresent the.
we have to be clear about definitions clear when documents cannot be made accessible and equally clear when they can. we must reflect the jurisprudence that has been handed down and we must balance data protection and privacy.
we actually enshrine the concept of a space to think;
we actually enshrine the concept of classified documents mr pirker so it is absolutely clear that documents that are restricted classified or confidential cannot be made public.
this approach is not about unrestricted access.
equally we deal with the issue of documents coming from member states.
democracy is based on openness and accountability and if we can only negotiate in secret where is the democracy in that?
i would say to nikki sinclaire that the labour government actually supported these measures in two thousand and one in council and the labour government continued to do so while it was in office.
if we can only do that in secrecy i am not one of those politicians and i do not belong to one of those political parties that concur.
flexibility is a strength and we show that in our committees when we negotiate with one another and we reach compromises.
whether the commission accepts this is irrelevant.
two thousand and one so even if we reject the entire proposal the rights that were enshrined in two thousand and one under the swedish presidency will remain.
it is either mischief or it is ignorance that causes people to propose such suggestions.
i would remind you that there is also a directive on data protection which cannot be overridden here.
our proposal from two thousand and eight reflects this delicate balance.
in the meantime the lisbon treaty has entered into force and required adjustment to the two thousand and eight commission proposal.
as these requests mostly concern very voluminous files fifty zero pages is not an exception the commission considers that the handling of such requests is excessively resource consuming with no added value for citizens.
i look forward to the constructive and thought provoking discussions to come.
this agreement risks taking time and i am afraid that given the amendments proposed in the report agreement on changes to the regulations is not within reach.
such is the agreement between the three institutions on recasting which dates from. two thousand and three to sum up the commission will look carefully at the amendments that will be voted by this parliament but let me be very clear many cannot be accepted by the commission.
finally it would also be impossible to protect personal data or sensitive documents after thirty years. besides protecting legitimate interests and a space to think we must also ensure that the regulation is used to disclose documents to the public in the public interest and i would underline and repeat in the public interest. this is its ultimate objective.
the proposed amendments do not go however in this direction and some of the amendments would even significantly weaken the protection of legitimate interests.
firstly and because the lisbon treaty has extended the principle of access to documents to all institutions bodies agencies and offices of the eu any common set of rules needs to feed a greater number of bodies with very different mandates and competences and this requires a sufficient degree of flexibility.
it means we would need to grant access to early drafts of legislation and to legal opinions.
this is why i have suggested a swift and separate discussion on this rather technical amendment leaving the door open for further discussions on other changes to the regulation.
they are aimed at better protecting public resources and a well functioning administration but they have now been simply removed from the report with no clear justification.
i can bring some more examples.
until the three institutions agree on full scale review of the regulation.
the regulation is part of the eu policy on transparency but we can do a lot beyond formal legislation;
the extension of the scope to all institutions bodies offices and agencies is a legal obligation under the treaty and therefore should not be controversial.
these proposals would not affect legitimate requests and our estimates would not impact on the numbers of the requests granted.
though disappointed by the lack of progress so far i hope that a real constructive dialogue can take place between the three institutions after the vote with a view to reaching an agreement. i would also like to repeat what i have said on previous occasions.
we can improve registers;
the institutions would simply have no space to think.
from our experience however the regulation is regularly misused by lobbyists or law firms with a view to obtaining information serving their own private interests.
i cannot of course anticipate the position the council will take on the proposed amendments but many of them cannot be accepted by the commission.
therefore the commission proposes some clarification to the scope of the regulation.
as there was no progress the commission decided in march this year to submit a separate proposal with a view to making the current regulation compliant with the new treaty.
finally a substantial number of amendments concern provisions of the regulation which the commission did not propose to amend.
regrettably no real progress was made since despite my standing offer to have a genuine dialogue on the core elements of our proposal.
at the same time we are the guardians of other fundamental rights such as the privacy of individuals or the protection of intellectual property rights.
therefore our institutions have the responsibility to strike the right balance amongst sometimes competing interests.
we are arguing for more transparency in order to make the current lobbying including industries visible where now it is taking place behind closed doors.
they are influencing policy making today which is not a bad thing but it should be visible.
madam president can i start by thanking colleagues that have worked with me on this dossier for what seems a very long time now. there may be some differences between most of us and the european people's party but i am sure that we can overcome those differences in the long term.
the debate is about the pre condition of democracy access to documents is according to the charter of fundamental rights fundamental to citizens and therefore any exceptions to that right have to be narrowly defined and justified.
only through transparency can citizens participate in an informed way in the democratic process which is even more important in the current crisis.
what we are talking about is a right that allows citizens and their representatives outside parliament and the institutions to make sure that we are accountable parliamentarians accountable for what we do in their name;
the commission accountable for what they do;
and equally the council of ministers accountable too.
as we know meetings of the council of ministers currently take place behind closed doors.
if we knew how our ministers and our prime ministers vote in their secret meetings we would be able to hold them to account in the national parliaments hold them to account not on how they report but what they say in those meetings and how they vote.
it would also i believe destroy the media myth that unpopular measures from brussels are imposed on national governments whereas the contrary is true.
national governments have to agree.
it is also about building trust between the eu and its citizens whereby a mixing of concepts from member states and eu should be avoided.
that is why i believe that at eu level we should become a model for our member states on transparency.
we want them not only to follow but also to participate in what we are doing;
we encourage public debate on our work. we really care that they get a picture and that they have a chance to understand if they so wish what is going on in the strasbourg and brussels buildings.
most importantly they have the right to check and to hold us accountable for what we do and say when we represent them on their behalf.
a climate of confidence is necessary to achieve complex negotiation like trialogues.
widely displaying pieces of information is not openness.
madam president to put things into perspective the first thing we should say is that the eu institutions are already amongst the most transparent institutions in the entire european union.
the epp group is committed to transparency and we have shown this recently in a vote we took in favour of the hautala sargentini report on public access to documents.
but unfortunately the report we are debating is a case of a good thing taken too far.
instead of increasing transparency it risks undermining the work of the institutions and therefore it does not serve the interests of our citizens.
now if we do this none of the negotiating parties involved will want to adopt a flexible approach for fear that what they say will be reported in public and will weaken their negotiating position.
they would not be allowed the space to think the space to present different negotiating options and the space to adopt constructive positions.
so despite its good intentions this report will not lead to further transparency.
it will just undermine the institutions' work in favour of citizens.
possibly one reason might be lethargy or lack of interest but another might be ignorance that there is anything to look for.
i think it was donald rumsfeld who distinguished between what we know we don't know and what we don't know we don't know.
in the case of the former we can employ our knowledge to seek the unknown but in the latter case we cannot seek a document the existence of which we are entirely ignorant.
perhaps there should be a publicly accessible register of documents or some proactive attempt to make sure that lobbyists know of them.
there is also the problem that discussions which are very sensitive but not classified or legally restricted information might take place without a paper or electronic record or that discussions by email might be routinely deleted.
is it anticipated there might be any rules preventing documents being destroyed or prescribing that record should be taken and should not be destroyed?
taken together we have to negotiate on these important points.
the eastern partnership in particular will remain high on europe's agenda and the eastern partnership summit in november is the right moment to show how important this relationship is and how we can deepen it further.
provided these countries are carrying out the necessary political and economic reforms we should offer them closer economic integration and political association.
i want to announce today that when assessing the national budgets for two thousand and fourteen and the budgetary outcomes for two thousand and thirteen we will again in full respect of the stability and growth pact consider allowing temporary deviations from the structural deficit path towards the medium term objectives set in the country specific recommendations
so following its commitments in the blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union as well as in the two pack the commission has explored further ways within the preventive arm of the stability and growth pact to accommodate non recurrent public investment programmes
in this context let me highlight another element of the commission's thinking that will help make sure that promoting structural reform and pursuing fiscal consolidation are mutually reinforcing.
i am confident that we will manage this if we work together in a truly constructive and pro european spirit.
we are confident that negotiations on the smart borders package adopted by the commission last february will be pursued with vigour under this presidency.
i believe moving forward on the proposals i have just mentioned will be indispensable to reaffirming our credibility and to regaining the economic initiative to getting us back on the path to growth as we should be by the end of the year.
the actuality of these days reminds us more than ever of the need for progress in these discussions.
i think it is important to note that the commission will report on developments in this field the internal energy market already in early.
we are therefore committed to making progress and where possible to concluding ongoing negotiations for association agreements including deep and comprehensive free trade areas and steps towards visa facilitation and liberalisation with the region.
i would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to lithuania and the other baltic states which from the very beginning have linked their regained independence and freedom to the european project.