kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
mr president my group did not vote for this report and yes there are some great cooperatives but not every supermarket is a waitrose.
the report even suggests taking money out of the eu budget and using it to take companies away from their shareholders.
for the european economy to thrive we need investors and quite rightly sometimes those investors also want to be shareholders.
if we undermine the shareholder model we could cause great uncertainty at a time when our fragile economy needs no more damage from badly thought out political legislation written by the left.
mr president inherent in europe's marine life is diversity. a policy that works for the beautiful coasts of west wales that i call home may be completely different to one which works off the north wales coast let alone that of scotland spain or cyprus.
this diversity benefits the whole country and beyond but it requires specialist knowledge to understand and manage.
by its nature the diversity we are keen to preserve requires subsidiarity. this report however goes beyond the concept of cross border cooperation and coordination that could be of benefit.
i worry that it could end up doing more harm than good by forcing a one size fits all approach when subsidiarity to include regional flexibility where appropriate has to be the rule.
as previous speakers have also highlighted european diversity extends to our seas.
therefore flexibility not prescription in any blue growth strategy is important.
much more still needs to be done on the single european sky.
we still have a ridiculously fragmented situation.
much more also needs to be done in order for the eu to be stronger in its negotiations with third countries.
if we fail to do that we will fail to get a level playing field for european airlines in the global economy. i am of course referring in particular to the emissions trade mechanism where we need a global agreement and we need to be speaking with one voice with the international civil aviation organization to get it.
however i do believe that it is important that we continually strive to improve our road safety both in the uk and across the whole of the eu. i am pleased to support this proposal to amend the requirements outlined in the existing legislative framework which governs registration documents for vehicles.
in this case however i hope that by returning this to committee the resulting agreements in trialogue will be able to strengthen the enforcement of the current rules for roadside inspection and roadworthiness testing and ensure that in particular these regimes are upheld in cases where the technical condition of a vehicle poses a risk to all our road safety.
this proposal is simple and is not controversial. a quick opinion of the european parliament on the commission's proposal will allow the council to adopt the proposal before the end of the year just in time before the current rule expires.
vat harmonisation is about centralisation and the consolidation of eu power.
a tax rate that is set before spending needs are decided is a recipe for taking people's money and then deciding what to spend it on.
combating fraud and easing burdens on smes are red herrings.
harmonisation of vat rates to a common standard and a common reduced rate which was the proposal of the commission back in one thousand nine hundred and ninety three would take yet more power out of the hands of member states. the levying of taxation is one of the defining characteristics of a sovereign state.
and although in the negotiations we finally agreed on origin labelling for fresh meat meps and member states were subjected to a huge lobbying campaign from industry.
so what did you expect?
it is clearly what the farmers want and more importantly it is clearly what consumers want.
this week we must send a clear strong message to the commission to bring forward proposals for mandatory country of origin labelling of meat in processed food.
what is really important is that over ninety of consumers say they want to know where the meat in the processed food they buy comes from.
it is not that difficult to understand.
surely consumers should not be misled.
if a beef lasagne is labelled as a british product that should mean it is made with british beef and if it is labelled as a french product it should be made with beef from france.
all we want is clear honest food labelling.
this parliament led the way on labelling of nutritional information on labelling of palm oil on labelling of allergens to enable consumers to make informed choices about the food that they give to their families.
and you know if they really thought about it this could be really good for the food industry helping to restore the trust in their supply chain that has been so badly damaged in recent years due to the horsemeat scandal.
hardly that expensive i think.
in the end unfortunately we could not get agreement from the council on meat in processed foods. but of course consumer groups were at a massive disadvantage because they just cannot compete with the lobbying resources available to industry.
as regards the third point on consumer preference as to the level of the origin indication the commission report fully reflects the observations pointed out by the honourable member. according to the report an origin indication set at eu non eu level may be considered from the consumer's perspective as too generic
mandatory origin labelling may negatively affect the consumption of needs related foods. it is observed that consumers currently buy meat with origin indication less often than they would have wished because of the price consideration.
the figures provided in the commission's report take into account meat of all species and all structures of food supply chains across europe.
here i should point out that the commission report was based on estimates from the food industry.
turning to the oral question on the first point i would like to clarify that the commission has not yet decided on any follow up action.
the supply chains of such products can also be quite complex and lengthy.
it covers all pre packed foods with meat ingredients of all species.
the main purpose of the report is to set out in a neutral and objective manner all relevant factors in order to launch an informed discussion with parliament and the council.
in particular depending on the strength of retailers or the suppliers some of the cost increase might be absorbed downstream in the food supply chain to the detriment of suppliers and only partially passed on to the final consumer.
it is therefore impossible to compare the estimates provided by these two sources.
these estimates as well as the methodology used were discussed and endorsed in the context of a focus group comprised of professionals active in the food chain including consumer associations.
however at the same time the report stresses the paradox of a discrepancy between consumer interest in origin labelling and their willingness to pay for that information.
in the case of france especially there is a sufficient supply of domestic raw material for the production of processed beef products.
the external study which forms the basis of the report looked into existing private schemes approved at national or concentrated industrial level.
the honourable member's second point cites a consumer study alleging that the cost of origin labelling of meat in processed foods is lower than price increases identified in the report.
these estimates correspond to the specific scenario where the indication of origin would be set at the member state third country level.
it was a ridiculous situation that never ever should be allowed to occur again.
so you know there is also another aspect to this.
it was done on computers.
that was pure corruption.
for the industry and not to the final product price.
it would do well to avoid bleating out the big food industries' arguments against and seek to implement as soon as possible what citizens and consumer groups have been calling for for years.
mr president it is almost exactly two years after the horsemeat scandal exploded across europe and we are still calling on the slumbering commission to wake up and propose legislation for origin labelling for all meat including meat as an ingredient.
in fact it is so successful that now what we have because of the absence of mandatory labelling is dishonest food manufacturers giving misleading representations of where the food comes from labelling them as irish recipes traditional farmhouse and local.
in ireland our voluntary labelling scheme which includes meat and processed meals has been a remarkable success with almost forty zero producers and one hundred and twenty two processors currently involved;
this is a demand which has pre dated the horsemeat scandal and it still goes unfulfilled.
whilst this scandal was as rightly pointed out caused by criminal activity it underlined the extremely poor levels of traceability in the food chain for consumers to know where their food is coming from.
the european commission needs to stop being apologists for the corporate food industry and start acting to defend and represent the interests of the citizens that they supposedly work for.
ninety percent of consumers want to know the origin of their meat both fresh and processed.
this is a perfect example of the appeal and benefit to businesses such labelling can have.
the commission claims in its two thousand and thirteen report we have heard it here that the production costs could increase by anything up to.
the horsemeat scandal was the biggest food fraud of the twenty one century and it exposed the lengthy complex and often very murky extremes of food chains in europe. that some of the biggest supermarkets were able to just apologise and claim they didn't know where the meat came from is astounding.
research as we have heard from the commission and consumer organisations across the eu consistently tells us that ninety of europeans do care about the origin of their meat. they want to find this information on the label whether the meat is fresh or used as an ingredient.
the two thousand and thirteen horsemeat scandal not only shattered public trust it reinforced consumers' demands for information on how and where food is produced.
colleagues we have the opportunity to improve our food chain and make it more transparent.
firstly these increases are seen as scaremongering by some consumer organisations and secondly most people do not conceive of having to pay for knowing such basic information as the origin of the food on their plate.
but make it harder for less scrupulous operators to cut corners.
the beef labelling model whereby the animal's country of birth rearing and slaughter must be given has raised consumers' expectations and people want to know the animal's full journey from farm to table because a more transparent meat supply chain will benefit not only consumers and businesses alike
some industry groups report that price increases of fifteen to fifty would be triggered by mandatory labelling.
whilst no silver bullet against fraud compulsory labelling of meat in processed foods would oblige food makers to keep a tighter grip on their suppliers and would make them more accountable for what they put into their food products.
mr president the powers that be must not muddle three separate issues as although they appear identical they are in reality distinct.
this is the most serious of the three and the solutions are good practice hygiene and for when things go wrong traceability.
you must know the entire route from farm to table and be able to identify where and how the problem happened.
food which does not make people ill but is not what it says.
in fact commercial interests police this pretty well most of the time.
the third is the consumer's right to know what they are buying.
linked to this is nutritional science which has to be based on science that does not date for example fat and sugar in the diet which may be about to undergo a revolution as a result of our better understanding of the role of insulin in the body. we must not saddle industry and consumers with requirements which are just about to be proved wrong.
any regime must properly and sensibly meet the needs of all three without confusing them either in law or in the public mind.
unfortunately as a result of the eu's usual lack of clear thinking they are at the moment horribly muddled.
the information that we have from the commission has come from enterprise and business self reporting.
i trust the consumers and the consumers say that they want this.
i also do not think it is any surprise that when we ask consumers if they want the country of origin labelling they will say yes and i do not think it is any surprise that they are not prepared to pay more for it but in my view this debate should be much more about the sustainability of the food supply chain.
in my view reputable food producers whether of products with processed meats or otherwise have sustainable long term relationships with their suppliers and therefore should not have the need to switch and swap between those suppliers.
that is how i come to this debate.
i am torn between the debate about what consumers want and what they are prepared to pay for. i do not see this on the commission's work programme for this year. i think it requires more debate but i would ask us to do it in the context of the sustainability of the food supply chain above all else and having these long term supplier relationships.
the issue of food fraud will only be tackled when we monitor and control the food supply chain adequately.
many people want to know where their meat comes from for a whole range of reasons.
it might be for environmental reasons it might be the air miles that are travelled it might be about the way the meat is produced the standards of husbandry.
people have a right to know that.
and yes i get lots of people telling me they want this legislation. ninety per cent of consumers is a large significant number.
i do not think it is about big industry really when you see the costs that the commission has put forward in terms of the cost of providing the labelling of food origin.
i think we need to look at and focus on the small and medium enterprises who i speak to regularly who are involved in processing of food.
nevertheless we should not forget that three of the partnership countries signed an association agreement with us and under the dcftas they are aligning their economies with that of the european union.
we believe it would be right and proper to increase the more for more financial allocations which are currently at twenty and direct them towards the associated countries. in order to be credible the european neighbourhood policy requires proper financial support.
we think we should certainly revisit that number in the forthcoming mid term review.
differentiation which is the core word of this review is reasonable and probably unavoidable in the eastern partnership.
they should be offered primarily a credible european perspective and we should help them in the short and the medium term to offset the social costs which are associated with that economic alignment.
these events will emphasise the increasing role of civil society and business contacts as an integral part of the eastern partnership policy. let me stress that the eu values our relationship with all six of our eastern partners
the nurturing of constituencies for reform able to influence national decision making is imperative.
differentiation in our bilateral relations will need to be further enhanced taking account of each partners ambitions and needs.
nevertheless no government is able to succeed in such an endeavour without the broad support of the people.
we are convinced that developing bilateral relations in this differentiated way is the best way to ensure that all six partners have a stake in the eastern partnership and therefore remain committed to this unique framework.
both georgia and ukraine have made good progress in implementing the benchmarks of their visa liberalisation action plans.
once we have received these we will give serious consideration as to the kind of relationship that both sides need and expect.
the commission will continue to monitor and to do its utmost to support them and will report on progress by the end of.
we will highlight the eu's commitment to supporting efforts devoted to advance cooperation in institution building mobility and people to people contacts market opportunities and interconnections.
the summit in riga will also be a valuable occasion to get our partners' views on the future of the european neighbourhood policy.
we have reached an understanding with armenia on the scope of our future relationship and we hope that the council allows negotiations to begin on a new contractual agreement with armenia.
we have a better understanding of the different interests needs and ambitions of our partner countries within the eastern partnership.
the riga summit will be an opportunity to review the early stages of the implementation of association agreements and dcftas and to demonstrate the eu's strong commitment to deepening our cooperation.
almost six years ago in prague we set out our vision of bringing the relationship between the eu and its eastern european partners to a new level by deepening our bilateral engagement and building a multilateral framework for cooperation and dialogue.
the association agreements including dcftas with georgia and the republic of moldova are already provisionally applied and the initial indications are very promising. trade is already increasing between the eu and the partners concerned. as regards ukraine the recent
local authorities parliamentarians the business community and civil society have a very important role to play in the eastern partnership. we therefore count on this house to help us stand with our partners in delivering the
we want to make sure that in redesigning our policy for the future we have listened to our partners and taken their views fully into account.
fulfilling the actions required in the recent commission progress reports would allow these countries to complete their respective implementation of all the visa liberalisation action plans' second phase benchmarks.
the full engagement of partners' governments is crucial in bringing about the necessary reforms.
we have moved forward in the area of mobility.
therefore i would like to stress that on the margins of the riga summit three large scale side events will take place the media conference on the role of the media in the eastern partnership the civil society conference and the business forum.
successful transformation is only possible if it emerges as a result of joint efforts of society as a whole.
and we are ready to work for more tailor made arrangements with them.
we do not impose choices on our partners.
secondly i have been here in parliament for six years now.
the only thing we can do is to show that their inertia will be replaced by our determination to ensure there is a successful outcome in riga.
but we must respond equally courageously by having a successful outcome in riga and above all having visa free travel for them by two thousand and sixteen if at all possible.
i think it is the first time i have seen the council here sometimes they have been criticised for not being here sometimes unfairly but a debate of this nature without the commission is unbelievable.
and above all these countries i think have shown very bravely that they have declared east is beast west is best'.
this will give encouragement to the citizens and therefore proceed in the path which they have taken independently.
madam president as we speak history is being written and age defining changes are under way. in the coming years we should be able to look back to now with the conviction that we did the right thing and provided the right response to the critical challenges facing eastern europe.
that their future is with the twenty eight member states as long as they genuinely fulfil their obligations and show real commitment to the association agreements' reform agenda.
we cannot ask them to implement harsh reforms without having light at the end of the tunnel.
i will focus on the element of ambitions and membership perspective we need to do more for those who have real and tangible european ambitions for those who have decided on the european path. of course much needs to be done and words are less credible than concrete and tangible actions but the eu should send a clear signal to moldova georgia and ukraine
as a result we have today three associated partners of the eu on the map of europe georgia moldova and ukraine.
this letter has been signed by ninety eight members of this house.
secondly we urge in riga to commit to extending the visa free regime to the citizens of georgia and ukraine by setting definite deadlines hopefully by the end of this year for the completion of their visa liberalisation plans.
firstly we call on the eu leaders in riga to recognise the future membership perspective of georgia moldova and ukraine.
we believe that the riga summit should act in an ambitious way and in the spirit of solidarity with our associated partners.
clarity on this along with the criteria and requirements will be the right step and is needed today not tomorrow.
the alde group fully supports the eastern partnership policy as it represents a highly effective stimulus for furthering democratic change and the process of reform in the partner countries in eastern europe.
unfortunately we are offering less than expected. we are making a step back in comparison with the last eastern partnership in vilnius.
these agreements are fundamental in order to strengthen political association and economic integration.
let us not give something else but something we can do and which should be done according to the efforts those countries have made.
at further risk.
you need to stop.
take a breath and just think about what is going on.
so once again i despair when i hear these things and i truly hope that nothing bad will come of this summit.
the concept of the eastern partnership in this situation is an important framework for engagement.
we need to get back to these basics.
to be successful we have to clearly demonstrate that we are prepared to fully engage our political capital for our neighbours.
we can do that by sending strong united and encouraging messages through this summit.
we are talking about the accession process of three countries.
under the present threats from russia they should feel that they are beneficiaries in many areas.
which are clearly willing to have this perspective.
an old rule says when a bear charges do not retreat'.
when somebody tries to stop you you have two choices either to backtrack or to progress further with redoubled energy.
coming back to our debate please allow me once again on behalf of the high representative to underline that we have listened carefully to all that has been said here today during the debate.
eastern european partners.
we will therefore continue to give every support to those partners which have taken on mobilisation on the most ambitious reform commitments through all the association agreements.
secondly our partnership involves six partner countries.
i cannot stress enough the importance of maintaining the inclusivity of the partnership.
the eu will therefore continue to engage strongly with all partners whatever their individual level of relations with the eu.
thirdly we will step up our strategic communication efforts to explain what the relations with our partners are about and what they are not about and we will certainly argue that they are not directed against any third party.
let me first of all stress that the drafting process of the joint declaration of the eastern partnership summit is still ongoing.
negotiations are of an inclusive nature between both our member states and partners.
negotiations are still ongoing and therefore at this stage we still await the final outcome of these negotiations.
the agreed consensus will have to reflect each country's specific needs priorities and aspirations and the common interests they share with the eu as well as the eus interests while making a realistic assessment of what can be achieved within the next few years.