kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
these additional safeguards recognise that the non euro area member states are not represented in the governing council and cannot fully benefit from the other mechanisms provided for the euro area member states.
the ecb will concentrate supervision on the most significant institutions determined on the basis of size importance to the national economy in home member states and the extent of its cross border activities but will also be able to expand its direct supervisory role in the light of identified needs.
overall we have in our negotiations sought where relevant to respect the balance of prerogatives between home and host member state supervisors.
we have agreed on the establishment of robust safeguards including the establishment of a mediation panel to resolve differences of views between member state authorities when the governing council objects to a draft decision.
a complete banking union requires common supervision deposit insurance and a common resolution framework with an appropriate fiscal backstop.
therefore the immediate priority for the proposal was to create a single supervisory mechanism for the euro area with the ecb taking on the prudential supervision of credit institutions.
in may two thousand and twelve the commission called for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro.
the new system will neither do away with nor duplicate the national supervisors but it will incorporate them into a more powerful architecture centred on the ecb.
the eba will preserve its role in preparing draft regulations and will see an increase in its powers particularly regarding the assessment of the resilience of our banking systems. this is a significant achievement and i will set out some of its key aspects in a moment.
a lot of the issues that have been raised have been dealt with in quite a lot of detail by commissioner barnier so i do not want to go over the same ground.
the adoption of the ssm is a significant step in a series of measures which together are intended to strengthen financial regulation and our banking system.
here i would like to take a moment to congratulate the european parliament and the econ committee on its vote on the bank recovery and resolution directive yesterday.
it is also necessary in order to avoid a repeat of the enormous difficulties that we have faced in recent years.
i should say that the stated position of the council is that the building blocks for banking union should be put in place as quickly as possible.
in that perspective i should like to underline again the need for early adoption of the directives on bank recovery and resolution and deposit guarantee schemes.
the introduction of an eu wide bank recovery and resolution process which would set out the framework for how banks are to be wound down is one of the remaining key elements of the eu banking union that is intended to break the link between sovereigns and banks.
we have reached an agreement on the ssm a very significant step forward towards ensuring financial stability and thus facilitating growth. we have also achieved agreement on the important capital requirements directive four which aims to strengthen the capital requirements for banks and the overall effectiveness of regulation for the sector and to enhance financial stability.
still less do we want to see experiments on the outside of the union framework such as the fiscal compact treaty.
what we need is a radical and comprehensive reform of the economic and monetary union structure of maastricht and the installation of a fiscal
that is it is my opinion that you do not really understand the concept of banking.
it is not some sort of tsunami. they are broke because we have a system called fractional reserve banking which means that banks can lend money that they do not actually have.
it is a criminal scandal and it has been going on for too long. to add to that problem you have moral hazard a very significant moral hazard from the political sphere and most of the problems start in politics and central banks which are part of the same political system.
yet governments and central banks do it all the time.
the sheer effrontery of this is quite astonishing.
plus underneath all this we talk loosely in a rather cavalier fashion do we not about deposit guarantees. so when banks go broke through their own incompetence and chicanery the taxpayer picks up the tab.
it is theft from the taxpayer.
until we start sending bankers and i include central bankers and politicians to prison for this outrage it will continue.
the european commission has made it clear that all steps necessary for the creation of the european banking union can be created within the limits of the existing eu treaties.
i think any doubts about that need to be nipped in the bud because it only creates a lack of confidence for people to be talking about treaty changes that probably cannot be delivered.
secondly in relation to the recapitalisation of the banks this has to be available on a retrospective basis to banks that are capable of taking on the responsibility of restructuring and have shown their ability to step up to the mark so to speak.
three i want to make the case and i think the commissioner needs to take an interest in this and the minister and the house that banks simply cannot pass on interest rate increases to mortgage payers whenever they need to increase their profits or refuse to pass on interest rate cuts because they are becoming like tax raising authorities imposing these charges on people who have already paid their taxes through the nose to recapitalise these same banks.
that is unfair and unjust and it should not be possible to further burden mortgage payers in this way. lastly i want to raise the question about deposits.
in ireland the effect of that was that the people who went to the building societies and banks in the village took out their money went to the other end of the village and put it in a post office which meant that the state ended up guaranteeing it all anyway while banks were running dry.
let us raise no question about deposits.
mr president the move towards a europe wide banking union has been described as one which will restore confidence in the eurozone banks ensure the long term validity and reliability of the banking sector and remedy the current financial crisis. if i truly believed that it could and indeed would actually achieve these things i would say by all means go ahead and proceed towards this union.
however i ask that my fellow meps remove their rose tinted spectacles for a moment and see the proposed banking union for what it truly is yet another futile attempt by the eu to clear up or indeed cover up a mess that it partly created in the first place. this proposed banking union represents a single one size fits all approach that does not show the slightest regard for the hugely complex nature of the financial crisis we currently find ourselves in.
a single rule book that is to be applied across all financial services is simply not the answer here and as for the suggestion that achieving a banking union will strengthen the single market why on earth would you want to strengthen a market that 1 does not make economic sense for the uk or indeed several other member states and that has been the root cause of so many problems in europe in recent times not least the horsemeat scandal?
the deposit guarantee scheme should also ensure that there will be certainty for depositors which is very important as well.
the single supervisory mechanism i think will focus the attention of the board of directors and shareholders on what they should be doing so that mistakes will not be made as in the past because the message is now clear that from now on banks are not too big to fail.
and sometimes when i listen to the discussion it seems like some colleagues and friends believe that we are making something at european level that will solve the problem.
that is not the case. i think first of all that we need to use the union we already have that is the european union which is dealing with banking legislation in a number of areas.
i think we should welcome the fact that we have the new directive on capital requirements because it will increase the stability of banks.
we have a process and negotiations with deposit guarantee schemes which is important for depositors and for security in the banking market.
i think these pieces and cornerstones are important to remember when we discuss how to proceed.
that we do not undermine the things we have and also that we can mobilise the strength of the european union economically financially and politically.
i think that in practice the bailouts and bail ins have already found the frontiers of the lisbon treaty and if we are to go further to
at the heart of that process is the transformation of the commission into a proper government.
nevertheless we have the prospect of ecb supervision and the expectation that this will promote market confidence.
to justify that expectation there is a place for stress tests and assessment of asset impairment.
for that reason the european parliament has written in as many accountability steps as possible including for national parliaments.
negotiation of an agreement with the ecb covering issues of disclosure a code of conduct inquiries and appointment procedures for the supervisory chair is under way and is part of the package.
that is why there will be no final vote until there is demonstrable agreement.
the ecb has also been given a duty of care for the single market.
the size of the banking sector in europe makes it impossible to ensure proper supervision with individual regulators even when they are empowered and willing to fulfil their mandates.
in order to break the vicious circle tying exchequers and taxpayers to banking debt we must show the same sense of urgency and have in place a european banking resolution mechanism as well as a deposit guarantee scheme.
in addition to being a market failure the global financial crisis can be considered a government failure misguided monetary policies lack of regulation or distorted regulation. this contributed enormously to the deterioration of asset quality in banks.
there is much discussion today about the origins of the crisis whether it started in the banking system and then spilled over to the fiscal sector after bank rehabilitation or vice versa.
this is a fruitless debate. as long as government policy considers systemic banks too big to fail there will be no way to cut the link between banking and the financial crisis.
this is not only an economic imperative but also a political one.
it is no longer acceptable to privatise profits via socialised losses at the expense of taxpayers.
the fundamental rules of capitalism should prevail. monetary policy and banking supervision can get into conflict when it comes to the rehabilitation of individual banks. the supervisory authority must be able to distinguish clearly between temporary problems in liquidity and insolvency.
insolvent banks must not benefit even from temporary liquidity assistance.
hence while the monetary and supervisory functions have to be separated there is also a need for cooperation and coordination between the two.
there are also too many cooks in the kitchen now the ecb the eba the esrb the efsf etc.
at the same time many questions regarding the proposals remain unclear.
i agree that they should be able to join and participate but at the same time they should demonstrate a strong commitment when joining the ssm.
my first point is on the need to look at the single supervisory mechanism and the single resolution mechanism together.
to ensure an effective functioning of the ssm there needs to be a transition from a system of national bank recovery and resolution regimes to a single european framework.
there is a risk of following the fiscal compact path of an intergovernmental agreement again.
this would be one more reform that would move us further away from the community method and increase concerns about the direction in which europe is heading.
let us recall that the cypriot government with the agreement of the troika was willing to effectively break the deposit guarantee scheme and rob money from small depositors.
dr sheila killian from ireland drew an accurate comparison when she wrote imagine a snowed in family just once agreeing that if we get really hungry we can eat the rabbit'. you can take that back all you like.
depositors are not just protected customers now;
they are also a source of money to save the bank.
it shows that there are no rules that will not be broken in the scramble to protect the interests of the one per cent.
who is to say that bank accounts will not be raided in spain portugal greece or even ireland at a later stage?
really effective banking supervision means democratic public ownership and control over the banks which is the only way you can have control over banking policy avoiding speculative activities ensuring that small businesses can get access to credit and stopping people being evicted from their homes.
you will have noticed that when i presented the digital agenda for europe to you many of the issues raised in this report are reflected in its actions.
your active involvement in this forum over the last four years has indeed promoted european values and i can only thank you as members of parliament for this as well as for the excellent cooperation between our institutions.
i hope we can continue to work in this spirit in the area of internet governance.
the principle that i would like to highlight is the need to ensure that european values as you have underlined are enshrined in the global debate.
we will be interacting with some of the global internet governance stakeholders at the next meeting of the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers later this month in brussels.
in recent years the public policy dimension of internet governance has become more visible and more important as internet use has grown and its governance has taken on wider implications.
the commission is aware of the fact that the european protection order is rarely used in practice and this needs to be addressed.
two of the member states which have not ratified the convention have however criminalised stalking. these are the united kingdom and ireland. the commission is aware of the differences in the legal systems of the member states and of the fact that their national protection measures differ in scope duration and nature.
this means that such victims have a right to access to information support and protection according to their individual needs.
this could for instance be achieved by informing or offering the victim the possibility of a european protection order each time the domestic protection measure is adopted.
i am planning to visit those member states that have not yet ratified the convention.
all of us here should continue to push for the ratification of the convention by the rest of the member states.
in all cases it leaves its victims extremely vulnerable.
for example they could be guided on how to deal with their situation by other measures like applying for an injunction order or damages for anxiety and harassment.
let me underline that the right to have access to victim support services is not dependent on a formal complaint with regard to a criminal offence.
this means that even in the member states that do not criminalise stalking the victims should receive assistance from those services.
it is therefore crucial that member states treat stalking as a crime.
national practitioners law enforcement and judicial authorities should recommit to combating all forms of violence including stalking.
i thank all of you who have been active on this issue.
in addition under the rules of the european protection order any victim of stalking who has been granted protection in one eu member state should benefit from protection when she or he travels or moves to another member state.
i stand ready to discuss the proposal both with citizens and with political representatives and i will explain and try to dismantle many myths surrounding it.
where stalking is classified as a crime under national law its victims can rely on all rights under the two thousand and twelve victims' rights directive.
it is most frequently of women who are threatened by former or current partners and often subject to repeated victimisation.
our challenge in this respect is both to ensure prevention and repressive measures and to guarantee appropriate protection for the victims of stalking anywhere in the european union.
that instrument provides for additional protection measures and for procedural rights for victims of crime.
madam president honourable members we are grateful to have the opportunity to address this important issue today. let me start by stressing that stalking is harmful behaviour of a complex nature and most often a form of serious psychological gender based violence that as such can go against our fundamental rights and values such as human dignity and equality.
as of january this year envr has a permanent organisation.
the council shares the concerns expressed by the european parliament in its report of fourteen march two thousand and eighteen on the implementation of the european protection order directive in particular as regards cross border cases where victims having obtained protection measures in one member state move to another member state. there are differences in member states' legal systems as regards the criminalisation or not of stalking and in respect of the protection measures guaranteed.
whih have not yet done so should contribute to a more effective and coherent response to this form of violence.
as a matter of fact draft council conclusions on improving police co operation in combating domestic violence and violence against women are currently being discussed with particular focus on the protection of vulnerable victims within a multidisciplinary approach.
the presidency devotes particular attention to combatting all forms of gender based violence.
the council has played a significant role both as a co legislator and within other initiatives in respect of this sensitive issue.
the european union legal framework that we have established contains a comprehensive set of rules that if fully implemented can contribute to broad and effective protection of victims across the european union.
the council believes that despite these differences we should pursue the common objective of ensuring adequate and equivalent protection of victims throughout the union.
however there are also other eu legal instruments that strengthen the position of victims namely the compensation directive and the regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters.
we should place their rights at the centre of all relevant initiatives and actions in our countries and across the union.
the european protection order directive has to be considered in conjunction with the victims' rights directive.
we need to do be much better at explaining and also in looking into the translation of the text of the convention in different member states because in the bulgarian language and also in the czech language by the way we do not differentiate between the words gender and sex and this creates a lot of misunderstanding and misconceptions.
and i realised that we have to do much better in explaining to our citizens what the istanbul convention is about that it is not for instance introducing the third gender into the national legal order nor is it pushing the member states to legalise
this is the convention whose main purpose is to fight against violence against women and children;
some of the infringements are still ongoing.
so we have to work more on this.
that's the point that we need legislation plus enforcement.
the convention stipulates that all of its provisions in particular measures to protect the rights of victims shall be secured without discrimination on any ground and it explicitly ensures that its signatories to recognise stalking as a criminal offense.
stalking is a serious crime that deserves serious consequences and it must be defined as such.
the safety of victims of stalking relies upon criminal justice professionals' ability to recognise this damaging pattern of behaviour and to take appropriate action to stop it.
nevertheless i would like to underline that it is beyond any doubt that bulgarian society is firmly opposed to any form of violence against women.
we would like to broaden the debate to have our whole parliament and our society on board so that the convention can be implemented effectively.
at present we are waiting for clarification from the constitutional court concerning certain aspects of the convention in relation to the bulgarian constitution and i am convinced that this will contribute to reassuring public opinion.
it will also clarify many legal issues and will contribute to a more constructive debate on the topic.
we will assess the situation in the light of the court's ruling.
this is true of the hugely exciting technological innovation as engineers and designers respond to the sustainability imperative and so it needs to be in terms of how we define and measure sustainability.
the systemic risk posed by stranded carbon assets could thus be avoided an important first step towards sustainable finance but we also need to eliminate other stranded assets from investment portfolios.
when it comes to sustainable finance my report makes clear that we look to our own institutions particularly the ecb and the european investment bank to set an example and to rise to the challenge of the paris agreement.
the swedish fsa's ambitious agenda to integrate sustainability into its daily work and the consideration of the threat to pensions and insurance from the tragedy of horizons by the netherlands.
mr president i must begin my remarks by thanking my colleagues for their engagement and for the way they entered thoroughly into the spirit of compromise that has enabled us to have such a positive and wide ranging report to vote on tomorrow.
while we may continue to debate about how banks should be regulated and what is the appropriate level of profits for enterprises there is no longer any argument about the fact that we need to embark urgently on a transition to a sustainable economy and that finance offers a powerful tool to accelerate that transition.
finally but crucially we need to hold the line as politicians as those who will lose value as we move towards sustainability seek to undermine our resolve.
this indicates that the sustainable finance agenda has moved beyond the realm of partisan discussion. it is not the property of any political faction.
future generations require us to stand firm and united to ensure that we use the power of finance to protect their future.
our proposal would be for something that time limits the value of different assets based on their sustainability potential measured by already existing indicators.
we welcome the excellent work of the commission's expert group on sustainable finance and applaud its level of ambition.
this would allow investors to shift their asset holdings gradually through time and would enable an orderly transition away from unsustainable investments.
our report lends political support to their recommendations and we seek to convey to the commission and council our firm belief that the citizens of the eu look to them to show global leadership on this agenda.
the urgent need to respond to the threat from climate change has led to innovation in the field of sustainable finance in different eu member states the french law of disclosure german leadership in the field of public investment in the energy transition the bank of england's timely action in encompassing the threat of financial stability from stranded assets
oil will always be able to move vehicles and coal will always be able to drive turbines.
it also shows that protecting the health and vitality of the planet we depend on is a cause that transcends normal political differences.
for this reason we the politicians are deciding that these fossil fuels will lose their value because the survival of our planet depends upon it.