kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
at the same time let us be clear the labour market is a national competence and we should respect the fact that the way the labour market is organised is decided by the member states.
i also think it is important to make the distinction between access to the labour market and general access to other social benefits and here we cannot give equal status to refugees who have obtained international protection and all the asylum seekers who might also be economic migrants and persons not entitled to international protection.
for others we need more trade we need to open more markets.
for some it is the democratic deficit;
for others we need ever closer union.
for some it is all those rules from brussels which hamper business disrupt agriculture and annoy citizens;
for others we need more rules to protect the environment. we need to enhance health and safety at work and we need to clamp down on tax evasion by multinationals.
in truth it is a combination of all of those things but if there is a common thread it is that for one reason or another people in the uk were not convinced that the eu was a positive project that they wanted to be part of.
there are no easy answers but that is our challenge in the eu.
in my opinion we can reconnect to citizens if we put social europe and economic europe side by side and if the eu is seen as a lever that will reduce inequalities both between and within member states.
now more than ever we sink or we swim together.
mr president last week we voted to urge the united kingdom to let us know as soon as possible how they might implement and respect the vote of their citizens but we clearly know now because events have unfolded that this may take some time.
what i am concerned about is to reassure citizens in my constituency of midlands north west which borders with northern ireland that until there is change everything remains the same although we know that uncertainty causes deep concern.
everyone on both sides in the recent uk referendum is in favour of a common market in the sense of unrestricted trade and opportunities to benefit mutually from commerce with our friends across the channel but when we get to regulating issues of this sort emissions limits for non road mobile machinery we realise that instead of a market that deals with
every country in the world pretty much has access to the eu single market.
if you look at what it says on the back of your smartphone it says designed in california assembled in china'.
what the argument will now be about is the extent to which the uk accepts continuing jurisdiction over the bits of its exports that do not go to the eu and i hope that those talks will take place in a friendly atmosphere taking for granted i hope our continuing military diplomatic and commercial ties to countries which in any dispensation will remain our friends and our allies.
i supported this report on a forward looking and innovative future strategy for trade and investment.
but in particular i supported the section which speaks about the fact that we need to have an honest debate about the costs and the benefits of free trade.
i absolutely disagree with those who say that free trade brings only benefits but equally i absolutely disagree with those who automatically oppose free trade.
in any trade agreement there will be winners and losers and not to recognise and plan for this is simply unacceptable.
we really do need an honest debate about some of the consequences of free trade such as manufacturing job losses the offshoring of certain activities and increased imports in different sectors but equally there are benefits.
it is important as i said earlier to acknowledge that there will be winners and losers.
mr president i supported this report and in particular how trade agreements can play a significant role in upholding social and environmental standards human rights and corporate social responsibility.
one of the core issues around trade agreements is what the commission proposed this afternoon on ceta the canadian trade deal.
personally i think it is crucial that member states have a vote just like we have a vote here in the european parliament.
otherwise citizens can legitimately say that there is a democratic deficit. this is a great opportunity for the eu to show its connection to citizens and those they elect to represent them in national parliaments.
at a personal level i would vote against ceta if national parliaments are sidelined. there are other issues such as isds which i do not support but above all national parliaments as well as the european parliament must have a role in either accepting or rejecting ceta.
we have to have our hearts open to those fleeing wars but our national and european systems also need to be ready for a great number of refugees.
this is the responsibility of both member states and the eu.
it contains forty actions for member states the commission and stakeholders.
many biological low risk pesticides are just not very effective and this is why they struggle to get authorisation.
i do not support fast tracking these products through a simplified authorisation procedure if they do not work.
the point of a pesticide is to kill the pests and if farmers use a pesticide believing it will work and it does not work the fact is that in the seasons it takes to realise that the pest can take hold as we have seen with cabbage stem flea beetle in the uk particularly with oilseed rape. there we banned neonicotinoids i am not arguing about that today but the pest has taken hold to the extent that we are now not able to control it with other conventional pesticides.
access to these types of pesticides not only increases the toolbox available to farmers but they also help to decrease the residue levels of pesticides in the soil water and non agri products.
by calling on the commission to come forward with a legislative amendment allowing for the establishment of a fast track evaluation authorisation and registration process for low risk biological pesticides we are also helping to resolve other pressing issues that are facing eu member states issues concerning biodiversity and exposure to carcinogens.
also by increasing the options for farmers we can help to tackle food waste.
also potentially by increasing the access to low risk biological pesticides we can help the fight against antimicrobial resistance.
so increasing the availability and promoting the innovation of more low risk biological pesticides is a win win for farmers consumers and the environment.
i can answer very briefly. as you know the annual growth survey for two thousand and twelve highlighted the importance of addressing the social consequences of the crisis and many recent initiatives including for example the youth opportunities initiative underline the importance of the european social fund in addressing
this is also significant especially if we compare ourselves to the united states.
the commissioner has two minutes to reply if only one commissioner is to be responsible for answering and if more than one commissioner is to reply each commissioner has one minute's speaking time.
i would like to remind you of the ground rules. questions are taken exclusively on a catch the eye basis.
i will interpret this topic as widely as possible but i would warn you that if your question is completely off topic and for example deals with the common agricultural policy you are liable to be cut off.
it says catch the eye but in fact i am blind so the people next to me are the ones who are catching the eye.
the commission is not responsible for the monetary policy of the european central bank and we are also working together with the imf to find the best possible solution in a very difficult situation. i do not think that the bubble economies which developed in certain countries including ireland and spain
but we have to find the solutions in the form of the new economic governance to the imbalances that developed in the eu.
i would reject the notion that the commission is responsible for some kind of wholesale austerity.
i completely support what has been said about completing the internal market and i welcome what commissioner barnier has said about the social market economy but where is the social' in this social market economy?
we need that stimulus and i ask the commission would they agree that it is time for that to happen?
is it not time when people are meeting their austerity obligations that the union diverted its own resources or found new resources or borrowings to start stimulating the economy?
it used to be that people hated the initials imf.
i think this is a good model.
exchanged in the first intervention and i would like to respond quickly to the one on the basque country because i visited the basque country in november and i believe that there are some very good examples which can also be used in other parts of spain.
it is good to hear you talking about infrastructure because investment in infrastructure is so critical to growth and competitiveness.
then the head of the british insurance industry warned of large reductions in infrastructure investment and a huge infrastructure owner told me their investors' increased costs could add over ten to every project investment.
if at the end of the second world war people had said look what germany did' look what hitler did' and look at what went on with kaisers and kings' we would never have had a marshall plan.
how long is this recession going to go on? i was director of elections for five referenda in my country where i advocated a yes vote.
i am one of the most pro european people in this house but we need to start hearing words like hope stimulus and growth as well as austerity.
people are making huge sacrifices.
pensions have been cut salaries have been cut and the private and public sector have been cut. we have introduced taxes. but we need a stimulus as well.
i would ask the commission please would you not just talk about truth talk about hope talk about stimulus talk about growth.
it is time we moved on.
we have to strengthen the social dimension of european economic governance.
we have many initiatives in the pipeline to deliver that.
we have a balance across the house so far but i have to say that anybody else whose name i have not read out is unlikely to be arrived at.
this follows in the footsteps of a monti i regulation which did the same in the context of cross border trade so in this respect this forthcoming regulation is not inventing anything particularly new.
i am glad that you are going to look at a study on the impact of our financial services legislation on investment but would you agree that what we need is a continuous and cumulative study of all of this financial services legislation
on our investment particularly in infrastructure projects and long term projects and the ability to react quickly if we have got it wrong?
this was followed by the epsco council where minister kamp gave his views about this situation to fellow ministers from other european member states. i think this case is very very unfortunate.
that is why last year in the economic semester some of the country specific recommendations also pointed to certain wage setting mechanisms which may have a role in helping or if they malfunction undermining
which is not the case.
you listen you think and you do not understand.
recently just a couple of weeks ago we had an opportunity to meet mr papademos in brussels together with the president of the commission and some eight commissioners working in the greek context. we are doing our utmost to ensure that structural funds continue to flow and the reforms that are implemented will result in
merging various former programmes into one and trying to apply uniform rules to the whole programme was not an easy task but we have overcome these initial difficulties i am therefore pleased that your report recognises the efforts the commission has put and continues to put into improving the implementation of the programme. this would not have been possible without your regular feedback and without us closely cooperating with our stakeholders and national agencies who implement the programme at national level.
as you point out we have seen many positive developments over the course of only a couple of years.
i welcome this report and i am very happy to comment on some of the points it raises.
it is also a greater opportunity to debate where we want to take the programme in the future. i therefore welcome the fact that the european parliament has appointed a standing rapporteur for the erasmus programme who keeps a critical eye on its implementation. i want to thank mr sver and his shadow rapporteurs
it is about kickstarting innovation across the fields of education training and youth.
as you know just last week we organised a launch event at the parliamentarium for a year full of anniversary events all across europe. i would like to invite you all to get involved in these events as we have so much to learn from listening to the erasmus generation and their ideas.
moreover funding rules have been streamlined and simplified funding mechanisms such as lump sums have been widely introduced.
current funding levels.
my services have put in place a long term it action plan to adapt our it tools to the needs of participants and to make the tools as userfriendly as possible.
to name just one language learning.
i am therefore glad to read in your report that you appreciate our attempts to simplify the application procedures through a range of digital solutions.
this is why erasmus provides flexible online linguistic support in many languages.
it. let me assure you that your conclusions and recommendations will be carefully taken into account in the ongoing mid term evaluation of the programme.
i am happy to see that as a result of our efforts one out of ten mobility participants come from disadvantaged backgrounds or have fewer opportunities.
it is about learners in vocational education and training and youth workers.
honourable members your report is a manifestation of our shared dedication to the programme and of our constructive relationship.
i am very proud that erasmus is a much more open and inclusive programme than its predecessors.
this is in line with the call included in your report. let me stress one more thing if we are to ensure the future success of the programme and the positive impact it has on the lives of so many young people across europe we need adequate funding.
first of all erasmus is much more than student mobility.
we need to involve them in building a stronger better europe.
communication to beneficiaries has been streamlined and finally this leaner management has made the programme more flexible so that it can respond to changing political priorities.
thanks to the use of online application forms and the online programme guide we are now moving to the next level of digitalisation.
the programme also offers additional funding to disadvantaged learners including people who come from difficult socio economic backgrounds or who have special needs because these people are the ones who need the extra boost to participate in the programme.
i want to thank you for the time and effort you have devoted to drafting
i believe that inclusion and accessibility go hand in hand.
it is about supporting our sports organisations and much more.
language learning is definitely a must in today's world.
we have established a strong relationship with our national agencies and beneficiaries.
it is about providing practical support to teachers and helping organisations and educational institutions to forge international partnerships.
we have built bridges between these fears which has led to an exchange of ideas and has also translated into a significant increase in the funding available to the benefit of all beneficiaries.
for their positive and constructive report and their suggestions especially with a view to the upcoming mid term evaluation of erasmus.
what we do in education training youth and sport is much more visible.
your report rightly identifies the cross sectorial approach as a main feature of erasmus.
issue of funding.
it has a chapter on volunteering which can be very useful for young europeans to gain experience and skills in volunteering which can be used on the labour market.
losing access to eu funding such as horizon two thousand and twenty grants which accounts for a quarter of all public investment in uk research could further tarnish the attractiveness of the uk as a place to study for international students including those from non eu countries.
they also encourage young people to participate in democratic life. compared to previous generations of programmes the new erasmus provides stronger support for learners from disadvantaged backgrounds which i welcome. by funding cooperation projects erasmus also fosters modernisation and eu wide collaboration which in turn stimulate innovation creativity and improved job prospects.
leaving the eu will have a major impact on higher education in the uk with an important loss of income due to a fall in the numbers of eu nationals studying in the uk.
these grants helped and continue to help young people enhance their skills and employability and intercultural awareness.
furthermore by ending freedom of movement a hard brexit would deprive future generations of young britons of the chance to broaden their minds learn a foreign language enjoy a new culture and gain a valuable european experience.
every member state carrying out judicial reforms must respect the rule of law as one of the fundamental values to which all member states signed up when joining the
unfortunately the polish reply regarding the third recommendation did not announce any concrete measures to address the issues raised by the commission.
not. however where such a council has been established to safeguard judicial independence as in the polish constitution the independence of that council must be guaranteed in line with european standards.
sadly these invitations were not accepted.
to be very clear the minister of justice in poland is also chief prosecutor and the chief prosecutor now has full discretionary powers to appoint and dismiss presidents of courts.
in parallel to the rule of law recommendation the commission has also initiated infringement proceedings in relation to the polish law on the common courts organisation which discriminates against individuals on the basis of gender.
the legislative process on these two draft laws which is about to commence will provide a key test for the polish authorities to show to the outside world whether or not there is willingness to respect the rule of law and take full account of the commission's concerns and the forthcoming opinions of the venice commission.
the commission understands that on the basis of this law a considerable number of court presidents have already been dismissed.
and finally the polish authorities should bring the two new draft laws on the supreme court and on the national council for the judiciary proposed by president duda fully into line with eu law and with european standards on the independence of the judiciary and the status of councils for the judiciary.
this was necessary after four laws adopted by the sejm would have had a very significant negative impact on the independence of the polish judiciary and would have increased the systemic threat to the rule of law. two of the four laws were sent back to parliament by the president of the republic. the recommendation also recalled the situation of a systemic threat to the rule of law resulting from the changes to the constitutional tribunal which have led to a serious undermining of its independence and legitimacy as the result of its
president duda also presented two new draft laws on the supreme court and on the national council for the judiciary.
the commission is not alone in its assessment of the gravity of the situation. other critical opinions have been issued on the draft laws not only in poland by the supreme court the council for the judiciary and the ombudsman but also at european and international level.
that is the basis upon which i believe this parliament's engagement is so important.
first the polish authorities should restore the independence and legitimacy of the constitutional tribunal as guarantor of the polish constitution.
complete recomposition contrary to the normal constitutional process for the appointment of judges. moreover the polish executive persists in its refusal to publish a number of the tribunal's rulings.
so let me recall for the record what it is that the commission expects from the polish authorities to avoid further escalation.
second the polish authorities should bring the law on the common courts organisation into line with union law by abolishing gender discrimination and by abolishing the minister of justice's influence on judges through the retirement regime and the dismissal or appointment of court presidents. third the polish authorities should bring the law on the national school of judiciary into line with european standards on the independence of the judiciary by eliminating external influence on assistant judges notably again by the minister of justice.
i have not had the opportunity to talk to polish ministers about the issue.
this is contrary to article one hundred and fifty seven of the treaty on the functioning of the european union and to the two thousand and six directive on gender equality in employment. in our reasoned opinion the commission also raised the issue that giving the minister of justice discretionary power to prolong the term of office of judges who have reached retirement age as well as discretionary power to dismiss and appoint court presidents would undermine the independence of polish courts.
i would refer to the recent opinions of the european network of councils for the judiciary and the consultative council of european judges. i would refer too to the preliminary observations by the united nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers who also takes the view that the independence of the judiciary is under serious threat in poland today and has expressed serious concerns about the two draft laws on the supreme court and the national council for the judiciary.
we have now sent four letters to the polish authorities since july inviting them to meet.
eu. it is up to the member states to organise their justice systems including whether to establish a council for the judiciary or
it is not my intention to repeat everything i said then it would take too much time but let me start by saying that an issue pertaining to the rule of law never affects only the country concerned it affects the whole construction of the european union.
after this debate the council adopted conclusions on the application of the eu charter of fundamental rights in. two thousand and sixteen these conclusions reaffirmed that democracy the rule of law and respect for human rights lay down the foundation of the european union and our societies.
this year the specific focus was on media pluralism and the rule of law in the digital age.
equally fundamental rights need to be upheld and defended as our best guarantee for sustaining stable open and free societies.
we also agree that there is never a time to be complacent about the state of fundamental rights protection in europe. our core values are put to the test every day as we are facing multiple interrelated crises be they in the area of migration or internal security.
mr president common values such as human dignity freedom democracy equality the rule of law and human rights are the cornerstone of the european union.
this challenge requires unwavering attention and efforts across different policy areas.
the presidency and indeed all of us agree that the protection of the rule of law democracy and fundamental rights in our union cannot be taken for granted.
the continued debate on these issues shows again that the protection and promotion of the rule of law and human rights are a constant challenge.
ensuring the rule of law is an absolute priority and has to be our joint commitment of the member states and eu institutions together.