kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
prostitution is not a lifestyle choice.
prostitution is something of a grey area in both poland and ukraine being neither fully legal nor illegal. with just weeks to go until the championship i am calling on the commission to work with uefa to initiate a europe wide campaign during the championship which would first and foremost educate the population at large about the problem of forced prostitution and human trafficking;
indeed women who are involved in prostitution will testify that they have had very few choices in life.
secondly seek to curb demand by raising awareness among potential clients; and also provide information and assistance to those at risk of being trafficked into prostitution during this time.
the european parliament must take resolute action and condemn these grave human rights violations.
we have been too patient with our eastern neighbours but their empty promises have exhausted themselves.
the last four years have shown at least two things.
i thank you and i want to extend this gratitude to your government and your country. in fact austria has been leading in promoting very important policies at european level.
and let me mention in another area the austrian commitment to clean and renewable energies as a key contribution to fight climate change and strengthen our economies. last but not least i would like to mention the strong support of austria for a european agenda for nuclear safety.
austria as we know is the country which has the lowest youth unemployment in all europe and let me also thank you for your strong support for the youth guarantee. let me mention in the same context the strong austrian support for a financial transaction tax at european level.
these are just a few examples of chancellor faymann's and austria's contributions to europe.
let me highlight in particular the open dialogue between the social partners which in austria is an important condition for growth and solidarity.
your strong statement today is another proof of that commitment.
you have the union of the twelve that is the minimum number required to start with the fiscal compact. you have the union of the fifteen and you have the union of the seventeen that is the euro area.
what we need is exactly the opposite of what mr cameron will tell us on friday.
believe me i think that what is killing the union today is that union la carte.
if you can pick and choose what will be left of the single market?
good arguments against another net contributor from the other side of the channel.
you have a union of the six that is the founding fathers.
i think that i can say in the name of the majority in this house that there can be no question about an individual renegotiation by a single member state not by britain and not by any other country in the european union.
it. a renegotiation of the kind he wants means in fact either a brexit' or the end of the single market and in fact the end of the european union.
thirdly we have an energy policy which is giving europe the most expensive energy in the world.
this represents the triumph of hope over experience of ideological prejudice over everyday reality. the fact is that the european union is in long term relative decline.
secondly the eu's customs union is overlaid by the dead weight of hugely expensive and onerous regulation which is squeezing the lifeblood out of our industry.
fourthly we have the disaster of the single currency which was described by former british chancellor lord lawson as the most irresponsible political adventure of the post war era.
the eu is squandering money on wind farms which by the way chancellor are hopelessly unsustainable.
the prime minister seeks to appease this opposition by demanding repatriation of powers but his demands will not be welcome in brussels and will not satisfy the people either.
they have concluded rightly that we shall be better off out.
you already have a divisive policy for fiscal and banking union in the eurozone which is driving a wedge between the eurozone and the rest.
the eu itself may break up.
do not believe him. nothing the eu has done will address the massive imbalances in competitiveness between the north and the south. it will take more than a few ad hoc bail outs.
it is driving energy intensive businesses offshore taking their jobs and their investment with them.
it is undermining our competitiveness.
in my country the uk there is increasing opposition to eu membership.
it will require permanent long term massive fiscal transfers from north to south but those will be unacceptable to german taxpayers just as the austerity the unemployment the grinding deflation you are seeking to impose in southern europe will be unacceptable to voters.
the voters have understood that eu membership is making us poorer and less democratic and less free. the people want freedom independence and democracy.
it is forcing households and pensioners into fuel poverty yet it is failing to cut emissions.
first of all the european union is a customs union but customs unions are an old fashioned sub optimal nineteenth century trade model so much so that virtually nobody else in the world chooses to use them.
european regulation is credibly estimated at costing gbp one hundred billion a year and that is just in the uk.
it is vital that we do have a serious debate about the future of europe; a debate in which the full scale of europe's crisis should be addressed.
this is not just about fixing the euro which is of course very important.
it is about recognising that in a global marketplace europe faces ever greater challenges that threaten our long term future.
it is about understanding that public opinion across the continent is increasingly alarmed at europe's direction.
it is just not good enough as a number of speakers have done to dismiss people's concerns as ignorant or our favourite word in this chamber populist.
if the people have stopped trusting the eu it is because many in this chamber and the eu seem to have stopped trusting the people themselves and that is an attitude that in my view has to change.
i think we need a new direction for europe;
i think we need to articulate a modern message setting out a new vision for europe. we want to see european cooperation succeed but this will require radical change in how we think and how we operate because today the eu stands at a crossroads.
as the columnist clive crook recently wrote the european project is in trouble because the model of a single ever closer union has now moved so far away from the reality of what people want and what economies can stand.
that is why the eu needs a new model not of inward looking ever closer union but a union of flexibility and of practicality.
so how can we achieve this?
well firstly we can respond to the crisis by opening our markets by freeing enterprise from the dead hand of the state.
we can address the democratic deficit if we recognise that the nation state is not an outdated concept as many believe in this house but the building block of legitimate government.
we can take a practical commonsense approach to solving our common problems rather than allowing ourselves to be driven by ideology.
and here are a few places where we could start a critical review of the entire community acquis;
slashing regulation that burdens our markets and businesses and costs thousands of jobs; a political drive to reinvigorate the single market through widening its scope and developing the digital economy;
these reforms will only be possible if we put an end to the mentality that as politicians we have the answers to everyone's problems.
often our good intentions have unintended consequences.
we can make it harder for people to take responsibility for themselves or for businesses which deliver economic growth and employment.
if europe's future is to be one of economic vibrancy then we have to realise that often the best thing politicians can do is simply get out of the way.
we need a fresh start; we need a new model not an la carte europe nor a europe with first and second classes of membership but a flexible model all converging around the single market to which every member state can contribute according to their needs and interests.
a europe where all are equally valued and respected;
it should be a special concern for austria a traditional advocate of central european states and the central european dimension of the european union.
let me say that i do not like this term because every net contributor country is a rich country and the rich country by definition is a net beneficiary of the single economic space of the whole integral european union.
second last year's report only promoted the involvement of social partners in implementing decisions decisions that were taken by others yet trade unions in particular often play an essential role in increasing workforce skills and productivity.
trade unionists in that factory working hand in hand with management have introduced radical innovations both in production methods and also in management of the workforce.
i hope this will be acknowledged rather than dismissed in the new report.
considering that only around nine of the country specific recommendations were fully implemented by the member states in two thousand and thirteen i am eagerly looking forward to the measures that the commission intends to take in order to increase the national ownership of csrs and to improve their implementation
as low as at present.
the commission has indicated its intention to develop a european pillar of social rights that takes into account the changing realities of europe.
that is frankly where it should stay.
the uk is outside but we do not want to stand in the way of any measures that eurozone countries decide to take to secure the long term future of their currency.
and number three fiscal responsibility.
i think the priorities as formulated this year will also remain valid for next year that is number one investment;
there are still some weaknesses in the framework and weakness number one is of course the very low rate of implementation of csrs in member states.
mr president i am very happy that we are having this debate ahead of the publication of the annual growth survey because it gives us a unique opportunity to convey our views to the commission and actually i hope to influence the commission's thinking on policy priorities for the next year. on those priorities i fully agree
the other weakness is the lack of national ownership and this is again something we have been talking about for quite a long time.
first on strengthening the euro area dimension.
moreover the eu internal market is being strengthened through a new internal market strategy and action plans for a digital single market and energy union.
member states continue to undergo fundamental and sometimes difficult structural reforms.
the investment plan for europe is operational.
the commission has made ambitious proposals to strengthen economic governance.
the commission has submitted initiatives aimed at restoring growth improving convergence and promoting social fairness.
since then important steps have been taken both at eu and national level.
that is a scandal and we cannot have any more of it.
this currency never was and never will be an economically sound project. it was a political project and not an economic project.
in the last five years the uk has generated more jobs than the rest of europe put together.
now that cameron's pathetic list of demands well rather pleas really have finally been published we know definitively that free movement of people is not up for negotiation.
thankfully the case for the uk is not so dire.
while this may make the federalists here feel fluffy and warm it certainly does not make the people of europe feel fluffy and warm as they are entering into an economic crisis.
unfortunately the brits are not feeling the benefits because of endless supplies of cheap european labour flooding our markets and reducing our standard of living.
we have a housing crisis in the uk and we have to build a new house every seven minutes just to keep up.
a few years ago one pound sterling was worth only eur.
artificially cheap money loaned under the misapprehension that the might of germany stood behind the borrowings of others has destabilised economies across the euro area. yet now you seem to want to integrate further to create a common treasury which will remove tax and spending decisions from national democratic control and yet the productivity path of the southern periphery will still not match that of germany.
you will need enormous and permanent transfer payments to compensate the weaker parts for living in this straitjacket and yet the levels of social solidarity required for that will not be forthcoming.
to the extent that the vista ahead is any less bleak the prime cause is not a sound basis for long term progress;
one forty and yet this exchange rate will surely merely further demonstrate the folly of holding so many divergent economies within a single currency.
mr president for all the grand talk about investment and structural reform the truth is this that the european union countries in general have experienced another year of paltry growth and are failing to tackle mass unemployment and particularly sky high youth unemployment.
you will i am afraid have reawakened the latent national hostilities you hoped to banish and locked these countries into an age of economic stagnation.
after fifteen years of failure it is surely not too early for supporters of the euro to admit it has been a calamity.
the southern countries lack the scale the brands the rd budgets the technical education the smooth industrial relations the communications infrastructure and the exceptional cultural reverence for work and organisation of germany.
weaker economies on lower productivity paths have had economic activity sucked out of them while stuck in a fixed exchange rate with germany.
it is the belated application of quantitative easing across the euro area and the accompanying weakening of the euro.
first there need to be viable programmes that really compensate for the growing economic divergence between the centre and the periphery of the european union.
this focus is misplaced.
we should be asking all the time how programmes will directly benefit citizens which citizens how when?
with the right answers asking whether we need more or less europe could become irrelevant.
my question is about the strategy to foster growth in europe. we can see that so far this strategy is mainly led by exports.
we need to foster european domestic demand.
so we are calling for a new policy mix where investment is really at the top where reforms are needed.
to add to this policy mix we should also focus on reducing social inequalities.
he tries to be every colour at the same time and every animal at the same time and in the end he is not even able to catch a fly. if i listen to this house we are trying to turn the commission into a very confused chameleon. we want to push them further to the left further to the right we demand that the country specific recommendations have more focus including on social issues and then at the same time we complain that not enough elements are taken on board when preparing these country specific recommendations.
if i listen to this house we not only want this commissioner to be a european politician but also a portuguese one.
i think that in last year's annual growth survey there was a very smart triangle of reform for competitiveness budgetary responsibility and investment and may i remind you that that is not only public investment but also private.
i hope that this so called holy triangle or trinity will remain in next year's annual growth survey.
of course this house rightly has demands.
we demand more political oversight in the future for example though the adoption of convergence guidelines.
we want checks and we want balances in the process of making economic policy. so for my part the european fiscal board could have been more independent than is currently proposed.
but i warn colleagues that we will not get any of our wishes respected if we forget the foundation which is this holy trinity.
in growth creation.
we really need to make it happen.
we need a single market pillar in the european semester. i will be very specific we need to press for full implementation of the services directive.
services can really bring us a lot of benefits.
it is about how to make our economy more competitive and able to meet the new challenges ahead of us. some say we need to turn challenges into opportunities; for instance that the migration flow can increase regional growth and help us address labour market productivity and demographic challenges. i am actually unsure how straightforward this would be without the skills and competences asylum seekers could fall into irregular employment with disruptive effects on the labour market.
we must remember that challenges are not always opportunities and that they must always be carefully addressed at the same time.
what we need to do is make europe's economy strong enough to respond to difficulties if they arise instead of simply looking at the best case scenario for the moment.
this means serious structural reforms in places where they are most needed and investing in europe's growth.
it must also invest in value added areas such as technology innovation digitalisation and small businesses.
this in turn means that the investment plan for europe must absolutely go hand in hand with the capital markets union the european single market and the development of the digital single market.
when i listen to the debate in this house it is as if the changes in the global economy are not there we are maybe looking at the internal market but not at the external one but the fact is that it is very much the increased supply increased productivity and increased competition we see today in the global economy that is the challenge to the european economy. where we lack competitiveness we are also suffering increased deficits and that will not help with the increased spending.
and that is the other thing to take note of in the survey report that wherever you are trying to perform a policy without considering the realities of the global economy by leaving the rules of the stability pact you are undermining the national economies.
and less employment.
that is the truth and we need to know that. that gives hope for europe because then we see what to do;
this is in order to pay the pending legal obligations which are growing at the end of the financial perspective. this is i have to repeat once more exactly eur. eight eight billion less than was the ceiling
in some areas budgeting below the pre existing financial programming for.
the payment should grow
the second part of the answer is of course a rigorous approach to administration zero growth of the commission and what we call the negative priorities for the very tough assessment of programmes to see whether they are working or not and on the basis of performance
funding of projects where irregularities have occurred or funding to regions where citizens' rights are being disregarded should simply be stopped.
there are several areas of the budget where we all know we could be cutting expenditure.
failed projects should be discontinued.
if we do so europe will be a better place it will have more growth more jobs more renewable energy more money being spent on innovation and more entrepreneurs.
having purchased a huge amount of greek government bonds and also having accepted much as collateral the ecb is now trapped.
european institutions are failing spectacularly to understand the nature of the problem.
the letter from the presidents and prime ministers of the five solid and solvent countries should not be forgotten and pushed aside.
for greece to start to grow out of the fiscal crisis part of the debt burden should be forgiven and absorbed by creditors public and private alike. french german and especially greek banks will have to be recapitalised.
twenty years ago when transition started in the former communist countries one of the most important structural reforms was the establishment of an independent central bank with strict legal prohibition of the monetisation of public debt.
the committee on civil liberties strongly believes that we should look at what is actually happening around us right now and that we need to improve our spending capacities in the area of refugee protection as well as in the area of roma integration.
in other words we should be prepared to look at reallocating resources to our priorities.
in my view our priorities should be policies which promote jobs and growth across the eu especially at a time when member states are cutting back on their spending.
hundreds of thousands of our own people are dying because of government neglect and eu cold taxes yet you insist on throwing other people's money at a disaster in somebody else's back yard.
i know this place is uneasy with our christian heritage but as always our bible reveals an eternal truth that most here would rather ignore first book of timothy fifty eight but if any provide not for his own and especially for those of his own house he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.
eu red tape is strangling our entrepreneurs and the carbon tax scam is plunging millions into deadly fuel poverty.
it is only human to feel compassion for the innocent victims of the natural disaster there.
across europe the death toll will run into hundreds of thousands but because this truth shames the political elite and because it highlights the inconvenient truth of global cooling this scandal will be buried as quietly as are our elderly dead.
i will give my attendance allowance for today if every british mep will do the same.
the organisational coordinating effort's priorities are to complete the needs assessment to have a better picture of the detailed needs and to organise the transport logistics.
this is a time when the strength of our commitments will be tested and must come out strong if we are to succeed.
lastly we have to organise the coordination of international relief efforts.
the second point is to build or rebuild the basic state capacity.
lastly the financial response.
it is important that we also see those authorities because they are the neighbours.
this should be designed to ensure a proper division of labour among eu institutions and member states and to ensure a linked relief rehabilitation and development approach with a sustained and seamless transition between immediate relief and post emergency response. we have been calling on all the member states to fully engage in these efforts and to turn into actions all our commitments for coordination and aid effectiveness.
why not some standing groups on a rotating basis who would be ready to go into the area when these sort of things occur?
now that we have a high representative who is a vice president of the commission that person must be more visible on issues of this kind.
twenty one member states with eleven search and rescue teams five field hospitals six advance medical posts forty medical teams six water purification units;
i also pay tribute to the officials who worked and have continued to work day and night to pull this effort together.
there is no question that because america is closer because it has the capacity to mobilise as quickly as it did then the pictures you will see on your television screens will be of them.
and there is also no question that as i was woken in the night to be told of the earthquake we mobilised our people as quickly as we possibly could. twenty one member states were mobilised to respond.
and you are right to criticise me that it is not as good as it can be in the future.
did it work well?
there was no doubt that i had nothing to contribute on the ground other than to take up valuable space when planes were circling the airfield unable to land because of the state of the airfield at the present time.
i agree that debt issues need to be a part of the discussions that take place.
many of the high government officials are missing. the capacities of the haitian government are not functioning.
it should and must get better and better.
i am not a fire fighter.