kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the european union will continue to campaign for the rights and empowerment of women in all contexts by fighting gender based violence and supporting relevant initiatives against this abhorrent crime.
the commission will continue developing targeted and consistent initiatives to support member states in achieving tangible results in eradicating all forms of violence against women making full use of european union competences.
as far as non member states are concerned women's and girls' rights form an integral part of the commission's deliberations when it comes to assessing what type of budget support is appropriate in a third country. but it does not end with this it does not end simply with money.
a clause establishing respect for human rights as an essential element underpinning relations as well as a comprehensive cooperation pillar establishing channels for dialogue on a broad range of issues.
it possible to prosecute the practice even when it is committed outside the countries' borders should be extended.
we cannot change that. we can however give a signal and do some political steering and we are giving those signals.
for me it is also very important that we do not forget those who put the bread in our mouths.
our priorities are there job creation smes reinforcing competitiveness innovation more money for horizon two thousand and twenty and cosme and we want to keep the youth employment initiative.
and i mean literally put the bread in our mouths.
but the world actually did turn around.
our third objective remains very important. it is to phase out the abnormal backlog of unpaid bills from the two thousand and seven two thousand and thirteen programming period by the end of.
the european fund for strategic investments is now operational and we expect that it will trigger eur fifty billion in additional investments public and private by the end of this year.
we also take note of a number of amendments that increase commitment appropriations above the draft budget proposal made by the parliament.
let me first address commitment appropriations including amending letter.
we have to be sure that budget two thousand and sixteen is done in a way that allows us to face what is unfortunately a more uncertain future.
this should guide us through the choices that have to be made and the choices we will have to make.
we will therefore more than double funding over this and next year to address the refugee crisis.
that is what we get in this place.
and then we look at our own house.
we believe that money could be cut from the european union special representatives.
mr president we tried to find ways of cutting the european union budget of understanding that at a time such as this taxpayers actually cannot support more and more money going from the people to the european union.
do we really need to be spending more money on a propaganda campaign on the euro?
a tenfold increase in the cost of the european chemicals agency again something we do not believe is needed.
and so we the efdd put in one hundred and forty two amendments to the eu budget and we watched as every single one of those one hundred and forty two attempts to save money for the taxpayer of the uk and the taxpayers in all of the member states of the european union
however while the dance moves are the same the music has changed considerably.
both of these dramatic developments in the last year are areas where we are clearly stronger when we work together.
it demonstrated clearly that the straightjacket of the mff as it stands is not fit for the challenges that we now face.
nowhere is this more obvious than with the refugee crisis.
in the last year we have seen the establishment of the investment plan a welcome recognition of the fact that to build growth in our economies we need to invest. unfortunately the commission chose to finance this plan for growth from the part of the budget that is dedicated to building growth.
but they also show the mff severely limits effective action.
mr president here we are again. this is only my second year of dealing with the annual budget but already it feels alarmingly familiar.
the council will tell us that the appropriations in this heading are higher than last year's budget but the demand for action and funding is also much higher because conditions have worsened in the union's neighbourhood over the past year.
we regret that the excellent amendments made by mr berger were withdrawn. they reflected well the current concerns with the bad management and rising costs of iter as confirmed recently by the german government. we hence hope that the plenary rejects the iter position and supports our own amendments which while not coordinated with mr berger could have been his.
we found a good compromise on the eu ep budget but we believe it is crucial to identify further saving areas for years to come and i would promise to come up with some radical ideas in the committee.
this can come with more democracy.
many of you have said that what this means is that we have to work together the three institutions to prioritise and make sure that funding goes where it is most needed.
that takes me to my second point because we will need it. i do not know what the next crisis is going to be but i know it will hit us because the world we live in is a fast moving world and it is shockprone.
we have our work cut out for us and i am very much looking forward to the days and nights that are coming ahead for parliament the council and the commission to come up with the best possible judgement the best possible budget for.
yes it will be a moment in time when we can seriously address the new challenges in front of us what we collectively can do but we will be faced with questions of the kind what is to give' because when we are faced with new challenges
has shown that there is indeed a lot of demand for the european budget and there is pressure on the european budget to deliver on multiple objectives.
shocks that come for economic reasons and shocks that come because of climate change and conflict.
from the perspective of the commission we have been working over the last year to execute our budget best to manage the money we have in the best possible way and then when we hit a wall when we run out of money to look for any possible flexibility we have to meet a demand.
in order to overcome the weakness of the eu's economy almost eur one nine.
that is why we are reversing the cuts made by the council.
we should not forget the commitments in the implementation of the payment plan agreed by parliament the council and the commission back in may.
furthermore we propose that commitment and payment appropriations be raised in several key areas supporting the full use of all flexibility tools available in the multiannual financial framework.
mr president i welcome commissioner georgieva's proposals.
she is as usual disciplined controlled and sensible and for that she has my thanks and my full support.
she spoke of building a budget on principles.
that means a budget which focuses its resources on those areas where it can help the member states most.
for example of course we must respond positively and urgently to the refugee crisis and of course we can and must help the farming sector through a very difficult period but at the same time it is important that we neither get deflected from nor lose sight of
the single most important thing the eu budget could be doing for europe's citizens and that is creating jobs and growth.
the second policy principle is value for money.
we do not have limited resources for the budget but that does not justify parliament's call for an ever bigger budget.
the size of the budget was agreed under the terms of the multiannual financial framework mff and this is not the time to be going back to the member states asking for more money. rather this is the time for us to see more focus and greater prioritisation in our spending.
that means taking the tough decisions.
it does mean discipline and it means that we have to do more to ensure effective efficient delivery.
the commission services are already working on developing proof of concept projects for exchanges between legal practitioners.
what tools do we have to assess the impact training has at european level? how do we assess the level of quality?
these are some of the aspects on which the commission is working and they will be the basis of the communication the commission will be presenting in.
how can we allow legal practitioners to be trained not only in eu law or comparative law but also in the skills necessary to work in a european area of justice such as knowledge of other languages understanding of cross border banking and similar issues?
the commission is working at improving access to european judicial training not only for judges and prosecutors but also for all other legal professions.
however i would like to underline that for several years stakeholders have been encouraged to present more training projects in response to calls for proposals but results have been disappointing only a limited number of good quality projects on judicial training were received and the commission regrets
in the meantime it is important to do more and better with the available means with what we have now.
the commission is currently assessing what financial means would be necessary to implement european judicial training and exchanges on a larger scale and some proposals could be presented or actually are going to be presented for the new financial perspective.
to develop a common judicial culture the commission is keen to encourage european networks stakeholders and member states to organise common activities on comparative law and approximation of law which might eventually come under the umbrella of a european law institute as indicated in the commission's action plan.
we would like to use the feedback from european judicial training activities to assess the quality of eu legislation in our ongoing efforts for better regulation.
how can we reuse good practices and transfer know how?
networking that would allow the profession to thrive on the skills and capabilities of the best and the brightest within it but also to provide the platform for training at national regional and european level in the engagement
we started exactly five minutes after nine and we seem to be able to finish five minutes before the end of the session before.
secondly there was a very important point made on focusing on the future.
the question is how to implement it as the training programmes evolve in two thousand and eleven but also with the new communication being put in place for the next financial perspective.
thirdly if i could just make one very specific point.
if our judges in the member states do not know that law and are not proficient in interpreting it on behalf of our citizens.
we can try to do our best through various linkages exchange programmes and continuing education.
but i want to look to the future because it is the young law students of today who will be the judges of tomorrow and there we have to concentrate on getting the legal education of today right for the judges of the future in a european judicial space.
they have to know their national law their european law we expect them to know foreign law all the laws of our twenty seven member states to know languages and to have a comparative knowledge of various legal systems.
it is going to be difficult to achieve this with our current judges with the best will in the world.
frankly the situation at the moment is not good. we ask a lot of our national judges.
but the member states also have to help us.
they have to find time and space to do this.
at global level the eu is already fully engaged in fighting climate change and its effects.
this is of course always very important.
in particular at local level the eu also promotes projects of sustainable development with small scale operations more adapted to the local environment.
for instance overall support for the asian region in the fight against climate change including water basin management is being provided as part of the commission's fast starting financing through the global climate change alliance in nepal and the new programme which will start in bhutan in.
in this regard the eu is already teaming up with the regional institutions with expertise in this field such as the icimod a nepal based institute referred to in the ep report as well as with the governments of the affected regions in order to discuss possible actions and cooperation.
this resolution is timely as it properly focuses on all the issues related to dam building and their reinforcement as well as on the necessary investment and technological adaptation to improve sustainability and minimise social political and environmental side effects.
i would like to underline that the commission agrees that dam infrastructure reinforcement has a multi sectoral dimension which needs to be tackled in a comprehensive and holistic manner ranging from watershed management to mitigation and adaptation measures as well as capacity building and political dialogue between bordering states.
they were the most dangerous things i have seen for a long time.
my report on dam infrastructures in developing countries is geared to the same subject preventing unnecessary deaths from floods that are caused by glacier retreats in the hindu kush himalayan range and also in latin america.
the reason why these glacial lakes are being created and why natural glacial lakes with natural moraines as they call them are being created is that the glaciers are melting faster at certain periods in the
now it is impossible i think for us to repair these moraines because they are naturally formed but we can control the outlet of water by alternative mitigation methods siphons and the construction of open channels
china nepal bhutan and other countries can come together under the auspices of the un.
and tunnels in order to lower the water level in the glacial lakes and by controlling the water flow into the local river system to use the water as a reservoir for use. there is much work to be done and i call for an international agency of the united nations to be created through the eu's support so that india pakistan
in pakistan when twenty million people twenty million people!
one three billion people eat rice and grow wheat on the river banks of these greatest agricultural assets in the world.
the routine managed drawdown of water on these great rivers of the ganges on the himalayan range is no longer predictable.
i believe it is the settled will of this parliament that we have one seat and i would ask president schulz to convey that to the council this afternoon.
mr president many members here will be very disappointed by the news that the european court of justice has overturned this parliament's decision to reduce the number of times we travel to strasbourg.
of governmental experts on additives as regards the fulfilment of the conditions for inclusion in the union list and the use of food additives. these conditions are defined in the regulation on food additives.
and fourthly its use has advantages and benefits for the consumer.
i would like to draw your attention to this because it is very important.
they provide that a food additive may be included in the union list only if firstly it does not pose safety concerns;
one nine billion worth of agricultural products from australia but we export eur.
so those of you who are set on voting tomorrow to exclude a sector the agriculture sector please think twice. think of what we could be losing.
in dramatic times when the winds of change are blowing some build walls and others build windmills.
let's be optimistic not protectionist when we do this.
in the united states of america donald trump has withdrawn from his commitment to do free trade in the region.
we live in dramatic times.
three one billion worth of agriculture products.
it is quite right as colleagues have said that we should want to defend certain sensitive products make sure we have quotas on certain products and make sure we negotiate safeguards for certain products but to ask for a whole sector to be excluded from negotiations is a crazy way to begin negotiations especially if that sector is the key sector for our negotiating partners. why would the australians or the new zealanders make concessions to us on gis on
i have argued in this parliament for over twenty years for free trade agreements with australia and with new zealand and they have finally arrived. negotiations are about to begin and by the time these negotiations are complete i am afraid that my country will no longer be part of the european union and thus unable to take advantage of the free trade agreement.
non agricultural market access or on sustainable development which is so important to my group if we are not even prepared to start talking about agriculture?
first of all i would like to say that as america is now hesitant about doing trade deals we the european union should go forward. secondly i would like to say that there is no place for the exclusion of a number of sectors or certain sectors from these trade deals.
firstly the inclusion of a sanctions based mechanism on the trade and sustainable development or tsd chapter.
now existing bilateral arrangements and regulatory cooperation make the case for a deeper agreement to be negotiated relatively easily.
i would not advise calling an australian a new zealander nor a new zealander an australian especially not if they play rugby for the all blacks but i do welcome doing free trade agreements with both these great independent and democratic trading nations.
this is an ineffective approach which discourages goodwill and damages engagement in negotiations.
mr. president it seems odd that only the ecr group seems to recognise that australia and new zealand are different countries with separate trade deals and not one nation as this debate suggests.
i note that the new zealand deal may be based on around eighty of the recent canada or ceta trade deal which is considered to be a gold standard. my group does take issue with two key points in the report though.
these developments have put european exporters of goods services and investors in a comparatively less favourable situation compared to their competitors in other countries.
we are reflecting following the opinion of the court of justice on the singapore free trade agreement and we are engaged in a discussion with member states about the future architecture of the eu trade and investment agreement.
as you know they are friends allies and partners of the european union.
the free trade agreements will help eu companies to have better access to the markets in australia and new zealand.
the commission made it absolutely clear to our partners in australia and new zealand that agricultural sensitivities must be taken into account in these negotiations.
i just want to end with a few words on transparency.
these proposed directives are now under discussion in the council.
an important difference with our recent practice is that these recommendations do not cover investment protection.
australia and new zealand have concluded foreign trade agreements with china with asean with japan and with korea.
the commission has therefore proposed that the negotiating directives specifically include this aspect to ensure that the future agreement will not cause any disruption in the eu including in our outermost regions.
the eu has signed political framework agreements with both countries to further strengthen the partnership on the basis of these values respect for democratic principles human rights fundamental freedoms the rule of law promotion together of international peace and security and also our joint work to strengthen the multilateral system and global rulebased trade. the eu has a healthy and mature trade and investment relationship with both these countries.
on thirteen september as you recall the commission adopted recommendations for negotiating authorisations and directives for free trade agreements with australia and new zealand.
we are one of the biggest partners of australia and new zealand in the trade of goods services and foreign direct investment.
no full liberalisation can be imagined.
this initiative is framed by our strategy to promote openness based on values and standards with likeminded partners committed to progressive rules for global trade. this is another part of our work to build bridges not walls with a circle of friends who share our values and this is also very much a political message as well as an economic and trade policy question.
we share a lot with them our norms our values different approaches and strengthening that relationship is a priority.
this is to strengthen not to undermine the important work that you do in this regard.
i hope that they will soon give us the authorisation to launch these negotiations without delay.
the commission has carried out an impact assessment clearly showing the benefits of these agreements for european producers and consumers.
as i strongly support transparency as well we have made these recommendations public to the world. we invited member states to engage early with their national parliaments so that there could be an early discussion on these two negotiations and of course also to facilitate your work on this and to give the general public an idea what trade negotiations are about and what is in this
we will of course as always keep you closely informed about developments as we take these initiatives forward.
they are part of the transpacific partnership with eleven countries and they are moving ahead.
that does not mean that we will not negotiate investment protection agreements with australia and new zealand but it does not have to be right now.
these trade agreements can create jobs bring about benefits to consumers and also support workers' rights and environmental and climate change objectives.
the submission to the public consultation and the commission's impact assessment paid particular attention to some significant sensitive sectors in european agriculture in the context of these free trade agreements and also what we do on our broad agenda dairy beef sheep meat and sugar.
may i say to ms quisthoudt rowohl whom i have known for a long time in this chamber as she entered the same time as i did that although she's not listening at the moment that she doesn't have to fear agriculture as much as she thinks.
it is no surprise that the eu has chosen these countries to kick off post brexit talks and wants to complete a trade deal as soon as possible.
i suspect it may be a case of one upmanship. as it is said if you cannot do trade with new zealand you cannot do it with anyone as new zealand is one of the most liberal trading nations in the world.
in fact no other country has so many mutual regulatory agreements with the eu already in place than new zealand preparing the ground for a swift and a smooth fta.
like our self determining commonwealth cousins we are also champions of free trade.
yet the uk starts from a position of even greater commonality with the eu following decades of harmonised legislation.
so do a good deal with new zealand and australia.
prove to the world that the eu is serious about free trade.
but be warned you must also do a good deal with britain.
the eyes of the world are watching and if another nation sees petty preferential or protectionist treatment to spite a britain that simply wants to govern itself as indeed they do in wellington and canberra it will be brussels that is judged not brexit.
i wonder if you are aware of the fact that france which you represent is a net exporter of agricultural products and yet you seem to want to roll back agricultural trade in general as you think it doesn't benefit the farmers.
but don't you think the french farmers happen to be one of the biggest winners due to the fact that you are one of the biggest exporters?
who do you really represent when coming with such claims?
it is also extremely important that negotiations are conducted in a transparent way and a strong sustainability chapter is a must.