kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this means that we try to collect together port investment and other green shipping types of investment in order to spread efsi to the areas where there have not been any projects so far.
so there are some attitude problems.
secondly this one should also be for the countries mostly affected by the crisis.
i would like to encourage the commission to act much more quickly and to bring the advisory services to national and regional level. this will have a twofold effect they will be more involved and develop better expertise.
citizens as well as businesses expect swift decisions and this is one. at the same time the plan is not a panacea for all our economic hurdles but it paves and facilitates the way ahead for the european economy with more competition based investment in projects with added value and a much easier access to finance for business. thanks to our suggestions the sme window was enlarged and in this way has
on average have a ten to fifteen higher tax load than in any other competing region of course this is influencing the climate for investment.
i do not know how you look upon that in other parts of europe but i would like to advise that as an approach from the commission during the review because the fact that the money in efsi is spent and used is not a success as such.
is it creating attraction to more investments and at what does it mean that we have undermined research science and the connecting europe facility?
so i think you have sowed the seeds of your own destruction.
we have in two weeks' time what is to be the biggest event in the history of this project.
and the other feature i have noticed here is the growth of what i can only describe as authoritarianism.
but now as we have allowed much poorer countries to have the free movement of peoples we see considerable anger in britain and in many countries across the north of europe.
when i was first elected here the word immigration did not even appear on my election address.
i did originally believe that we should leave because we were a square peg in a round hole.
it is bad for the whole of europe. and i hope that on twenty three june it is not just independence day for the united kingdom. i hope it brings an end to this entire project and in a few years' time we could be sovereign democratic nation states that work and trade together.
i came in here in one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine and sat at the back and there were only three of us in the whole building who thought our member state should leave the european union.
you know i warned you we all warned you that it would not work for the mediterranean countries.
just have a look around at the empty seats this morning. and the idea that tens of billions of private capital are going to arrive for joint projects with you guys frankly i think is pie in the sky.
it could comfortably work for the optimal currency zone in the north.
but it is i think these grand projects that in many ways i think are sowing the seeds of the end of this political project.
but it is grand projects that have turned the tide of public opinion in particular the introduction of the euro.
when i saw what happened here in two thousand and five when the french and dutch rejected the constitution and yet sneakily it was brought in through the back door as the lisbon treaty i realised then that this is not just bad for britain;
i hope this is the last time i will be speaking in this parliament from a member state.
we did not use that word once when the first three of us got elected here.
the other big grand project was to allow into this union first eight and then ten former communist countries some of them with human rights records that are frankly shocking and abysmal and others in which corruption is so rife that these countries have not made the transition to being full western democracies.
and yes it has led to the rise of parties that some may consider to be deeply unpleasant but that is what happens when you take control out of people's lives.
well they are facing the next bailout in probably july of this year and because you want to hold your project together you are forcing them bit by bit to become a third world country.
it is the british referendum and it is not just about whether britain leaves the european union because if we make that choice i am confident many other countries will make that choice too.
and so i am going out now;
way. if you want to see the projects which have already been signed you can find all the projects on the internet. it is very good to look at them and pass the message on to the other regions about what the others have already
europe. in the best case it can provide financing or it can help to get investments worth eur three hundred and fifteen billion
i have very good information on the activities of
done. efsi will not solve all the problems in
eib has done its share very very well. one issue i want to raise in the debate and i want to raise awareness amongst meps on this issue is that it is also possible to combine structural funds with efsi.
they will use private capital regional money and efsi funds in order to provide risk financing for those companies.
so let us have a look at the weaknesses.
i think this is something that we should focus on or maybe i am ill informed and maybe the eib could do better as well as the commissioner in really portraying the difference between the projects that we finance from other instruments and the high risk projects.
am i wrong in saying that so far one single project has been financed?
this is where i would expect a serious initiative from the commission with a serious and thorough review of the existing legislation in this respect.
i agree but there is more to it. i think that if we speak of the investment environment of the climate of the conditions then we should also look at the existing legislation without lowering standards this is not the point that i would like to raise but still cutting significantly the administrative burden for businesses especially for smes.
more of a concern is what kind of projects are we really financing?
that is completely insufficient.
for instance in annual growth surveys and when analysing member states' economies we have identified national barriers for investments and some of those findings ended up in the country specific recommendations.
as everybody remembers in the investment plan for europe we had three different parts which are mutually reinforcing.
we are making it easier for service providers to expand to the other member states and creating a digital single market. so lots of things are happening on this front and i hope parliament will support these projects.
it provides risk financing mostly to private investors and by doing so it crowds in private money which is currently peacefully resting in bank accounts.
the main thing is to focus efsi financing on the areas where market does not function properly.
this is functioning quite well.
we already have more than one hundred requests mostly from private companies.
finally the first pillar of the efsi plan is also up and running.
plan. efsi has functioned very well in europe but we could use the same model also for external financing especially when trying to achieve development
a second pillar of the investment plan consists of two major initiatives.
so over time there should be thousands of investment projects and hopefully it functions as we have planned.
these one hundred and eighty five agreements between the eif which has support from efsi and banks will provide financing to approximately one hundred and fifty zero european
so it is some sort of dating service for project promoters and financiers and it is up and running now.
i visited london and the financiers for instance investment banks said that they are able and willing to invest more in european infrastructure but it is sometimes very difficult to find good projects from different countries.
we are also going to propose some kind of external investment
the newest creation under the second pillar is the european investment project portal.
also one thing on which we have to be very careful is to provide financing for new innovations which will strengthen the sustainable development of our economies in social terms in environmental
the internal market in europe. just to give you some ideas of what we have already done in terms of creating a better investment environment we are lowering capital charges for insurance companies investing in long term infrastructure.
we disclosed it at the beginning of june and i am quite excited to see how well it functions.
we have around sixty five projects i mean infrastructure or industrial investment projects which have got financing from
people. you are representing our regions and the more you are raising awareness amongst investors about the opportunities that efsi can offer the better. even though we are working very hard every single day advertising efsi opportunities we are never as efficient as you are
the most important part of the plan is the removal of barriers to investments.
in this sense i am for instance against excessive concentration of projects in selected countries.
no the project should be selected on the basis of economic viability.
madam president when i was flying back from strasbourg to london a few months ago i looked down at the sea and i saw line after line of huge wind turbines generating clean green energy and i thought is this the juncker plan?
but then i thought maybe that was the project that was funded already by the european investment bank.
it is great to see new investment in infrastructure.
we need it but we cannot be complacent because public confidence in european spending is at a very low level and we need to make sure that all the money is well spent.
so when we are reviewing the performance of the fund for strategic investments we should also evaluate how this programme relates to other eu funding including the eib.
so let me recall the three objectives the investment plan and efsi should meet and in fact the crucial questions the european parliament will address to you to ensure a regular oversight. the questions are very simple. how far is efsi going in raising recovery and job creation?
my conclusion and my group's conclusion is that the commission needs to change something fundamental first on the promotional strategy because you need to build up investment platforms and to spread advisory hubs everywhere.
sooner or later you need to confront the need to raise the ceilings of the mff and most of all you need to create real room to invest in the national fiscal policies.
facts and figures are showing that juncker's plan is performing better than a lot of people here believed it would.
and exactly now when we have reached our cruising altitude along with planning to go further and watch further we have to see what the results are and analyse them.
create more public and private partnerships and more and strong technical assistance on the ground to help potential beneficiaries;
although aimed at modifying the use of derivatives through increased transparency of reporting and where applicable reducing counter party risk through central clearing this has been an example where the most vocal and persuasive voices shaping this legislation have been those delivering growth and value in the european economy namely businesses large and small from many member states.
we must now ensure that technical details in particular on segregation third countries and different types of collateral are suitably addressed.
i would like to thank the rapporteur dr langen and his team for ensuring that the global dimension of this regulation has been considered.
such treatment of non financials must be ensured in subsequent legislation so as not to discourage genuine business hedging which would have a significant impact on risk management in the real economy.
where there are overlaps on to other legislative reports such as mifid mad and crd we must ensure that the principles established in this regulation are delivered throughout and that our european businesses are not at any stage disadvantaged.
i believe that the langen report has demonstrated that the democratic process both here in the parliament and other eu institutions including the commission is working.
the report presented to plenary this week considers proportionate responses to different derivative products based on risk considers the end users of such products when used for hedging business purposes and takes into account the needs of millions of european savers and pensioners.
the comparison with us legislation has and will be taken seriously in order to avoid regulatory arbitrage. equivalence not sameness is the key as we are not the us and there are important differences between our legislative processes and theirs.
for instance the powers of rule making devolved to esma cannot be as wide as for their us counterparts and conduct of business aspects in the eu belong to mifid and mad.
i support exemption of foreign exchange from clearing since there are already settlement procedures through cls bank that cover the risk. i also support the exemption of pension funds from the clearing obligations.
this should continue until the collateral problem has been solved.
here we do have a difference from the us in that their ccps accept a wider range of collateral so that their pension funds are not caught in the expensive cycle of asset conversion that would apply under emir.
we also hear a lot about horizontal versus vertical silos.
what is important to my group is open access and the efficiency that competition provides.
we need to ensure that there is not unfair profiteering because the costs incurred in the financial system in general take their toll on the real economy and real people.
however derivatives are widely used for risk management including by corporate entities engaged in the real economy and by pension funds.
of course it is also true that like many financial products they can be abused or made overly complex.
we are also pleased to see the uptake of the suggestion of frand fair reasonable and non discriminatory licensing practices.
this can usefully be applied in a range of financial services to achieve openness and competition while respecting legitimate property rights.
madam president in the financial crash we saw how a shock in one corner of the global financial market coupled with uncertainty sent systemic waves across the world.
the aim of this regulation is to reduce systemic risk caused by a financial institution's failure by encouraging central clearing and improving transparency. it is not intended to lock non financial companies out of derivative markets which they use to reduce exposures to fluctuations in foreign exchange interest rates or raw material prices.
having excluded these companies from this regulation we must not price them out of these markets when we look at the capital requirements directive later.
i would also be concerned if the compromise in this text on what are acceptable liquid assets were to be cut and pasted into the rules on bank liquidity.
but derivatives allow producers and suppliers to reduce the volatility and it would be wrong to blame such fluctuations solely on derivatives traders.
we need to look at economic factors as well as market abuses across physical and financial markets when we look at mifid and mad later this year.
the ambition of this regulation is to reduce systemic risk and it would be a mistake if the end legislation contributes to increasing monopoly powers in our markets.
we have to move from perception and myth to scientific research.
we need harmonised rules in the european union based on science.
research has to continue.
i know there are many in this house who would like to get rid of the word family' but i simply do not support that view.
mr president while there are some positive statements in this resolution i have some concerns and could therefore not support it in particular recital h which speaks of unclear wording when defining basic notions such as family and the right to life from the moment of conception'.
i do not seek to push my pro life views on other member states.
however there are many clear references to the term family' in the universal declaration of human rights and indeed in the charter of fundamental rights which we have recently appended to the lisbon treaty.
indeed the word family' appears five times in the charter and six times in the universal declaration of human rights.
i believe citizens of all member states have the right to make their own decisions in this matter and i am supported on this by the treaties.
member states have the right to make their own decisions on their own territory i support that.
i have not read the wording which is described as unclear;
we want to ensure freedom of choice for consumers and farmers and we are trying to do this in a reasonable practical and workable way.
finally we asked the council and commission to ensure that necessary resources for independent researchers on the potential risks of gmo would be in place and i think that was a good move on our part.
what we are doing here is supporting a proper legal basis whereby member states if they choose can ban the cultivation of gm crops.
i was happy to see some amendments carried from my own group in particular amendment forty four where it states that the long term environmental effects of gmo crops as well as their potential effects on untargeted organisms should be rigorously assessed.
we are trying to give some legal certainty and it makes no sense if we have one case after another in the court of justice.
more than anything we need to increase our understanding of the phenomenon that we are facing.
i think that we need to know more before we commit ourselves to the cost of tampering with the arbitrary targets we therefore cannot meet in order to grab headlines.
i would therefore question the wisdom of increasing the budget to thirty and placing substantial extra costs on the industry at a time of economic hardship. issues of climate change and global warming are of great importance not just to europe but to the whole planet and for future generations to come.
this will help to avoid unequal treatment of regions that no longer come under the convergence objective.
furthermore in certain regions the impact of the economic and the financial crisis has been particularly severe for example in my own region the border midlands and west of ireland.
in particular today i am pleased that we supported amendment thirty four which calls for the creation of regions in the intermediate category.
in that context it is crucial that the most up to date information is used so that policies in place from two thousand and thirteen onwards reflect and react to the actual situation on the ground not the situation of a few years ago.
mr president the problem with this report can be very simply stated.
like almost everyone else in this chamber i am dealing with secondary reports and i am doing my best to weigh up the opinions of people who have done the research themselves. but i am an elected legislator and i think it would be negligent not to have a view on what constitutes a proportionate response to an identified problem. it is here that this proposal fails the test.
they have to encourage others by their actions. in other words they are using legislation not to achieve an identified outcome but to show what nice chaps we are and to feel good about themselves.
the european parliament cannot accept one of the member states bending its constitution in a way that is not in conformity with eu values and fundamental rights. the hungarian constitution is alarming for a number of reasons.
one of the things that we talked about during this workshop was the whole issue of aid.
what they wanted was more accountable aid.
mr president as someone who believes in the sovereignty of the nation state i voted against this motion for a resolution on the revised hungarian constitution.
yet again we see the interference of this house in the internal affairs of a member state seeking to force its opinion on the hungarian people. let us not forget that the democratically elected parliament of hungary adopted this new constitution by more than two thirds this year.
the representatives of the people of hungary support the constitution so what right have we to reject it?
sadly what appears to have motivated such angst in this place is that the hungarian constitution is clear in matters about marriage and the family.
i for one respect the position of hungary and reject the attempts of this house to interfere in its internal affairs.
the pro gmo agenda is driven by six major food corporations led by monsanto.
they are backed up by some of the right wing in this parliament and other parliaments who have opposed here today the support for even the extremely limited requirement for a risk assessment before authorising a new gmo variety.
the environment also suffers through the loss of biodiversity and the growth of weed resistance which leads to the use of even more harmful pesticides and the crushing of sustainable farming.
mr president permanence is the illusion of every age.
one of the things that is most striking when you talk to people in the city of london is their belief that somehow there is an entitlement to the pre eminence that they enjoy that it is automatic.
i can imagine those people as portrayed by the old masters with their luxurious furs and their rich embroidered cloths and their golden chains saying no london does not have the infrastructure to take over from us we are a natural hub we are obviously going to be the banking centre of the world'.
but bit by bit as a result of these eu regulations we are losing our pre eminence.
this particular report is only one small chip into the architecture.
i think that credit default swaps are an important hedge for some investors they help optimise capital.
but this report on its own is not going to bring the end of the square mile.
the lesson i take from my own constituency is that where concerns exist they should be listened to.
i think that is the question you have to answer.
is the european public prosecutor's office the best way to tackle fraud?
i had my reservations then and i think in recent months we have seen how delicate and fragile this confidence can be.
but disregarding the concerns of member states in establishing new and more costly bodies is not necessarily the solution in my opinion.
therefore although the legal basis for the establishment of the office allows for a council decision with the ep merely giving its consent i strongly believe that the setting up of the office through this procedure should not touch upon the fundamental rights of persons where this house has co legislative powers.
as long as we create union bodies with investigative and prosecutorial functions we need to create the framework for guaranteeing the procedural rights and remedies of those investigated in accordance with our own human rights legislation and jurisprudence.
i welcome the commission proposal and am convinced that in the future the union would benefit from an ample proposal aiming to create a european criminal justice area. establishing a european public prosecutor's office charged with the protection of eu financial interests is just the first step.
the report we will vote on tomorrow reflects precisely this view and sends a strong message to the council.
madam president first of all i would like to thank the rapporteur for his work and all my shadow colleagues for their contribution to this important report.
i am convinced that more than ever mutual trust confidence and solidarity will be the principles to capitalise on if we are to continue the work we are initiating now.
at the same time this endeavour should equally involve both european legislators the council and the european parliament.
however this could be the ultimate test in terms of member states' willingness to participate and engage in a project which could become a step forward in the europeanisation process of our legal systems.
i absolutely agree with parliament that you cannot have a public prosecutor's office without having the rights of the accused being firmly anchored in a horizontal way.