kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it is very difficult to get speaking time in some of the key debates if you are not in agreement with the big group's line without either dramatically compromising your position or kissing backside in endless mind numbingly boring meetings and that is why for people like me explanations of vote are very important.
in fact it was bad regulation when i was running my own small business that got me into politics in the first place just trying to change one particular thing.
however i am pretty sure that any regulation that comes from this place will certainly be creating more small businesses.
in the end i abstained on this vote because of my concerns about soils in particular.
we made some progress in the amendments in relation to agricultural issues in general but my vote in the end was to abstain rather than vote against because there is much in this report around the environment about power generation and emissions of which i am in favour.
i voted in favour of this report because anything that improves road safety has to be welcomed.
it must be rejected.
that should be the responsibility of the national governments.
alas this is obviously not that place.
industrial installations make a significant contribution to pollutant emissions in europe but heavy industry is one of the drivers of our economy and needs to be encouraged to produce greener emissions. this is a major issue for my region of the west midlands which is one of the most industrialised in the uk.
we need checks on the european safety net and we need to look at issues such as the spreading of manure and slurry which i believe would be disproportionate to the environmental benefits we get.
administrative burdens and costs have to be proportionate to the environmental benefits because if that is the case we will have a win win situation which would help businesses meet their environmental commitments bring significant support in the fight against climate change and have the potential to improve health conditions for young and old people across my region.
in other words it raises alarm bells at the obvious fact that just as happened to the roman empire the wheels are starting to come off the eu chariot.
mr president cohesion policy has long marked the european integration project and is among the most valid european policies on par with the single market and the monetary union.
it should continue to be the strongest financial pillar for infrastructure projects for less endowed countries as these are the bases without which there cannot be economic development.
this is more than highways.
this is our nature this is our beliefs.
for the first time in human history in peacetime independent sovereign countries are contributing to other countries' prosperity voluntarily on a systemic basis.
and the only way to let the stars shine is by not taking even one step back from this nature not even one step back from these beliefs.
cohesion policy can let this continent grow together much faster and closer than before but it can also tear it apart and that's why we need to make it better.
first of all we need to invest in the future.
big money big business will not solve the problems that europe is facing today.
that is why we do not just need any investment but sensible investments to fight inequality to create jobs to revolutionise our energy systems and to create a sustainable economy.
secondly we should not punish those who actually need our support the most.
sometimes in politics we hide behind technical terms to cover up problems and controversies.
macroeconomic conditionality' is one of those terms.
most europeans probably don't even know what this means and there are some politicians who actually don't want them to know what it means because they can have a devastating effect on their lives.
it is very often punishing those countries who are in most need of european support.
and anyway why should a local ngo supporting long term unemployed people pay for the possible mistakes that their government have been making.
macroeconomic conditionality is simply wrong and this parliament has been opposed to macroeconomic conditionality in the past and we should keep up this fight even if the council and commission are pushing us to change our position.
lastly we need to gear up the fight against fraud and corruption.
cohesion policy is not only about economic and social affairs it goes deeply into questions of rule of law.
we cannot have europeans losing trust in the whole system because of those who are undermining its credibility.
that is why we need a functioning european public prosecutor and mechanisms to end corruption.
yes there are forces in the council who want to get rid of cohesion policy altogether but instead of being afraid of them we should pick up this battle; we should stand up and tell them bring it on! ' we are ready to fight for cohesion policy for the future.
a more accelerated national economic and social development more rapid economic growth and increasing employment this is the value added of cohesion policy.
it is therefore beneficial not only for the less but also for the more developed member states.
in future cohesion policy should be more flexible while at the same time based on reasonable conditionalities. while implementing long term investment goals it should also be able to contribute to meeting the new challenges.
for example to ease the effects of the economic and financial crisis to react to migration and refugees' integration challenges to deal with climate change the digital agenda innovation demand and energy safety issues amongst many.
we started discussions with differences between parliament the council and the commission. and indeed there are also differences between the political groups within this parliament.
now of course it is important that the money goes to italy as soon as possible so the people there can benefit from these structural funds.
i also wanted to say a few words on the future of cohesion policy.
i think we in this parliament can actually learn something from our discussions on the national disasters issue.
we were much stronger in those negotiations because we were united and therefore we also need to be united in our position on the future of cohesion policy.
detail can come much later because at the moment there is so much on which we can agree with we need to agree an adequate budget cohesion policy that all regions should get something that there should be more for poorer member states. we should agree on simplification we should agree that there should be a greater focus on performance but the main thing today is to agree this report and to start the fight for the future of cohesion policy.
the revision of the current regulation should aim to set up a more efficient and practicable system for the authorisation of novel foods.
if some people are concerned about nanotechnology then they should be able to make a different choice.
for example we cannot demand that a novel food has no negative impact on the environment. whether we like it or not all human activities have an impact on the environment and such a provision is disproportionate in this context.
i believe parliament needs to take a strong stand and by means of a majority vote put pressure on the commission to find solutions that echo the will of the citizens.
people have the right to know what they eat and make their choices accordingly.
instead my group believes we need to strike the right balance between encouraging innovation and applying the precautionary principle concerning food safety consumer and environmental protection and animal welfare.
we must be consistent in the political message we send to the commission and to citizens.
to that end for the plenary vote we have retabled a set of amendments to facilitate the procedure for products that are similar to foods or ingredients already existing on the market and where the authorisation procedure has already started under the old regulation.
i understand some of my colleagues' concerns about allowing on the market new products that might present a danger or mislead the consumer.
of the need for pre market authorisation for innovative products to reassure consumers that new breeding or new production techniques are safe for humans and animals and respect the environment and consumers' interests. the proposal streamlines and speeds up the authorisation process
it also includes an improved safety assessment tailor made to different types of foods thereby allowing safe traditional food from third countries to enter the eu more easily.
i would particularly like to confirm my support for the following principles the need for a definition of engineered nanomaterials and the clarification that all such products require a case by case authorisation by the eu institutions;
through a centralised food safety evaluation by efsa and sets precise deadlines at every stage of the procedure.
i would like to welcome the work of parliament whose report addresses major issues concerning the development of a safe food sector.
and the confirmation of the fact that food products from cloned animals are novel foods and therefore cannot be placed on the market without having been assessed by efsa and authorised through a regulatory procedure.
that may sound reasonable but who is to establish such a fact and based upon what evidence?
madam president this is a complicated dossier on which there are many differing views so i would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for going along with some views in the spirit of compromise when she may have personally preferred otherwise. there is however general recognition amongst all political groups that there needs to be clear regulation for novel foods both to protect the consumer and give legal certainty to producers.
we are grateful that a number of our amendments have been accepted in committee and hope that those of our amendments which narrowly lost in committee will finally be passed in the full plenary tomorrow.
for this reason we are against the suggestion that any product made with the aid of nanomaterials should have this separately stated on the label.
indeed one of the important principles for our group is that such regulation should help to facilitate the development of such foods and not put so many restrictions in the way that they never see the light of day. for this reason we have asked for a roll call vote on amendment thirty to confirm support for this key objective.
we are also against the suggestion that a novel food cannot be approved if it has a negative impact on the environment after being consumed or becoming waste'.
we also believe that any regulation should be proportionate and practical.
but i can confirm that as a sign of our general support we will propose to vote in favour of the report at the end and to get the show on the road.
we also agree with the need to strengthen data protection for a certain period.
would not some existing products also be banned under such an edict?
i would now like to thank the commissioner for not just her work but her introduction making it so very clear that the aim is to simplify and streamline this whole process.
it must protect the functioning of the internal market and public health and at the same time facilitate market access for novel foods. however i have some concerns generally about what i will call the scientific antipathy and distrust of this european parliament and indeed of our national parliaments
we do not do justice to ourselves with emotive hysterical or populist responses to the latest peer reviewed scientific developments and we do not do justice to our democratic mandate.
then we slowly open up and delay authorisation.
if our embarrassing experience with the gm food and feed authorisations and rate of progress thereon are anything to go by the answer must be no'.
why do we respond as if we are scientific illiterates on any new aspect of this area?
why do we distrust peer reviewed science to such an extent?
have none of us or very few of us scientific backgrounds in this parliament at all?
are we not looking at a different situation here?
to protect the rule of law and fundamental rights of eu citizens including threats to freedom of the press the right of the public to receive impartial information and professional confidentiality including lawyer client relations as well as ensuring enhanced protection for whistle blowers.
to evaluate any agreement mechanism or exchange with third countries involving personal data in order to ensure that the right to privacy and to the protection of personal data is not violated due to surveillance activities and to take the necessary follow up actions.
it is a testament to this report that in many parts of the member states across the european union in many political parties and in many member states the issue of the digital bill of rights and a digital habeus corpus is being spoken of.
there is so much expertise and commitment here in the european union on issues of privacy and fundamental rights but how do we make it last?
we looked into what intelligence services were doing.
in all of that we had to create this digital bill of rights or digital habeus corpus.
tomorrow in a unified way i hope we will turn those reactions into the first stage of a digital bill of rights.
and espionage and the many stories in the press and to ensure that from that situation we worked together across the political groups to have the most in depth inquiry i believe anywhere in the world.
the precedent we had was the echelon inquiry and the cia renditions inquiry and we had a huge task on our hands.
and what we have just heard is that the european union is unique and this house is unique in that we were a mature parliament which was already legislating on the data protection regulation and the directive.
but what was important about the inquiry was that it was different and the narrative was different from any inquiry undertaken by any member state because of what we have just heard.
in six months we ensured that we went to washington and that we had accountability here amongst whistleblowers parliamentary scrutiny bodies intelligence bodies and a whole range of players and actors here in brussels and strasbourg.
let us have a unified vote tomorrow to ensure we have turned this into something positive and lasting into the next mandate of this parliament a data protection bill of rights that we can all be proud of.
so we created a number of actions.
to ensure that we suspend tftp until the umbrella agreement and negotiations have been concluded and a thorough investigation has been concluded on the basis of an eu analysis;
so what we have created from the edward snowden allegations the witnesses and the interviews jim sensenbrenner the congressman who created the patriot act but told us now that we need to do something about what the nsa is saying and president obama who told us that on the one hand he wants to protect us citizens but foreshadowed what is happening to foreign persons
but we also understood that we had to come up with a digital bill of rights.
they are in fact referring to our report and in doing so they are referring to what we learned in the echelon report which was that we can carry out an in depth inquiry in this house but that we must make something of it and we must make something lasting of it.
the snowden revelations gave us a chance to react to those revelations.
i support this report;
my party also passed a resolution for a digital bill of rights at our congress last weekend including a demand to end the bulk collection of data.
i would direct you to the website of the prestigious royal united services institute for his speech and the terms of reference.
this reinforces the point that i made earlier namely that the only way to address this important issue raised by the debate today is by engaging in a constructive and rigorous dialogue with the united states.
i am fully aware of the political consequences of being on the other side of the atlantic or being on the other side of the channel.
i checked my written notes and i had written that we are listening with interest to the democratic debate that is going on on the other side of the atlantic'.
secondly i would also have to question the use or perhaps the abuse of the blue card.
when the political groups vary enormously in size with some four or five times bigger than the others.
thank you very much for your indulgence.
some of the supposed questions are not questions at all but statements.
we have to call on the national parliamentarians to help us with further investigations.
that is why we need the report tomorrow.
unfortunately the opportunities to make sensible and valuable recommendations to member states in areas that fall within the eu's competence were sadly missed.
for too long some factions of the house have felt that the most effective way of dealing with any situation is an irrational show of strength rather than by wielding a more productive hand of diplomacy.
but unfortunately if sensible solutions were what this house was seeking in this report we have fallen wide of the mark. i therefore sadly but inevitably have to urge members to vote against it and find a better way forward.
thank you very much indeed sophie for that. i believe that if the work of this parliament is to be regarded in a credible manner then the nature of any inquiry and the recommendations which it makes also have to be credible.
of course i fully support the intelligence community being democratically and independently accountable and the highest data protection standards being put in place.
instead we have seen a report that makes some of the most irresponsible recommendations and threats i have ever seen as a member of this parliament.
i and my group will not support any report which calls for the suspension of important international anti terror agreements and the holding to ransom of vital trade negotiations affecting all our citizens.
several other international obligations of european member states people should not be extradited to countries where they might face either the death penalty or torture.
the disclosure of information about the surveillance programmes operated by the us national security agency nsa has understandably raised a number of complex questions and serious concerns about its effects on eu citizens.
these concerns have been expressed at both eu and member state level and relate inter alia in particular to the important issue of the protection of personal data.
your report has achieved a careful balance between the reasons for acting in this area and the reasons for not taking any action. it advances the idea of a so called european digital habeas corpus on protecting fundamental rights in a digital age.
i indicated then that we very much support the commission's initiative to make contacts with the us in order to seek improvements to the shortcomings the commission has identified in its communication on safe harbour most of which by the way are not specific to nsa surveillance practices.
the report of this house your report rightly underscores that the process of increasing mass surveillance has not been subject to any prior public democratic debate.
we therefore welcome today's debate and the process which you have initiated through this report.
we are also listening with interest to the democratic debate that is going on on the other side of the atlantic.
we have noted that the report and recommendations of the review group on intelligence and communication technologies set up by president obama has prompted very lively discussions in washington. this brings us to the heart of the matter.
however we should not create the illusion that the european union alone can decide on these matters.
the public debate that is taking place in the united states will be equally important to our concerns.
we therefore particularly welcome president obama's launch of a review of us surveillance programmes.
the only way to address these different issues is through open and constructive dialogue with the us.
i think you meant to say on the other side of the atlantic'.
i will never forget the words that the german chancellor angela merkel used during the german electoral campaign a few months ago.
she said when she was asked about the nsa scandal that the only answer to the nsa scandal is more data protection at european level and fast as soon as possible.
i have read the mandate and there is nothing about fundamental rights in it.
a massive violation of the rights of european citizens is being ignored by the council.
there is a certain irony colleagues in the fact that at this very moment the us congress is in session because ms feinstein the chair of the intelligence committee found out that the cia has actually also hacked into the computers of the us congress.
ms feinstein is not amused because apparently there are limits to the activities of secret services secret services across the atlantic but also within the european member states and also incidentally within our neighbour russia which have been acting like cowboys over the last few years.
because that is what we are talking about.
they have no business monitoring millions of innocent citizens like a giant peeping tom.
they enter the most intimate part of our private lives even through our own webcams.
it is a bloody shame all under the pretext of national security harassing journalists and whistle blowers who expose the wrongdoing of governments.
because that is what we are talking about and it is not some remote exotic dictatorship.
this is europe we are talking about and massive violations of the laws that we pass.
politicians cannot even be sure that their communications are not intercepted and listened to by others maybe by political opponents.
we heard here that secret services and governments are even producing dirt to discredit religious leaders.
well why not opposition politicians?
i mean how far does it go?
this is the very fabric of our democracy the rule of law that we are talking about and i find it unbelievable that the epp still has hesitations here and that the ecr is actually going to vote against.
this house will stand up for the rights of european citizens for democracy and for the rule of law as it is laid down in the treaties.
this working round what is on shore what is offshore what is foreign?
another question that is raised here is the inclusion of private companies acting within the state security services.
finally i really think that if we are simply looking at a nice diplomatic cosy chat with the united states as a result of this it makes you wonder what has to happen before we actually take some definitive action.
the first to my parliamentary colleagues.
i predicted at the beginning of this debate that there was going to be a high quality of debate for a very simple reason unlike all the member states this parliament embarked on an inquiry having already started on the data protection regulation.
this is the only international inquiry into mass surveillance into the most sensitive issue our intelligence services which do a brilliant job in defending us and in dealing with cybersecurity the most sensitive issue and we had to deal with that and deal with this issue of mass surveillance.
there are no more sensitive fundamental rights issues than this and here was the expertise in this parliament.
i would say to my colleagues in parliament that when we look at this digital bill of rights which i believe is fit for the surveillance age there will be aspects of it dealing with safe harbour tftp and so on which may not be exactly to the taste of everyone.
but i would say to you look at the fact that we have built a digital bill of rights a digital habeas corpus which is sellable to our citizens because this is about fundamental rights.
even congress in the united states has not had an inquiry.
before i became a politician i was a computer programmer so i am wondering could you please explain to me if we continue to rely on us infrastructure and if the data is stored and processed in the us how will you technically be able to prevent the nsa from simply reading whatever they want with no effort at all?
mr president let me begin by thanking claude moraes for his dedication and excellent work on the report before us today.